Q: Creationism/Evolution/"Young Earth"

[Larry]

I was considering posting this in the Liberty U thread, but decided it was really more of a topic on it's own.

My question concerns the interraction between religion (and I'll admit that, because of my background as an American, I'm mostly asking about Christianity, because that's the religion I see the most) and science. (Again, the place where I see this interraction/conflict the most in in topics like evolution, dinosaurs, and the age of the planet.)

I have to admit that, from where I sit, it really appears to me as though a lot of Christians (although not necessarily a majority, or even close to it), act like they think that they need to suppress this particular science. Almost as though they believe that if the science is proven (or just becomes accepted) then it will be a threat to their religion.

My question is why (do they think it's a threat)?

Far as I'm aware, for example, there's not a single place in the Bible that says "God created the Earth in the year 4,132 BC". Far as I know, science could "prove" that the Earth was created in any year they make up, and it won't conflict with a single word in the Bible.

So, why is it so important to set up special, religiously approved scientists who's job is to prove that well, the Ark could have carried a lot of small dinosaurs? Or to claim that (to pick a silly example) Jesus may have ridden one?

One analogy I think of when I see people jumping through hoops to try to argue against something that isn't attacking them in the first place is the argument about the "center of the Universe".

A lot of people did a whole lot of evil things to try to suppress the truth. And all they did was delay the acceptance of a fact which, once it was accepted, didn't disagree with their religion, anyway.

So me question: Can anybody explain why so many Christians are so scared of a scientific discover that, as near as I can tell, doesn't disagree with a single part of their religion?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I can't answer that, even though I consider myself a Christian...I've never felt anything science-related negated my spiritual beliefs (plus I don't attend any church, so there's less doctrine I feel I'm forced to follow)...

I will say this, though...there are a lot of "secularists" who will use science to disprove the existence of God...so maybe the Christians who do what you're asking about do so because they feel science is being used (by some) to disprove their faith in some way?

[wysknz1]

Real science is not to be feared by anyone or any religion. Theories are dangerous.

(waiting patiently for the comment....religion is theory too)

[Dan T.]

I think most Christians accept the tenets of modern science, and that only a relatively small percentage of fundamentalist Christians hold to a strict literal interpretation of the Bible, from which they cannot accept the theory of evolution and the notion of different epochs of life spanning tens of millions of years.

[PeterMP]

Because the literal reading for the Bible, which includes the idea that the Earth is 6,000 of years old, (based on adding up the expected ages of the people on the Earth in the "begat" sections of the Bible) pre-dates the scientific idea that the Earth is billions of years old.

Essentially, you are ending their religion of a Bible that can be read directly and is completely accurate (based on the English translation because I've read the Greek word doesn't even indicate direct descendency (i.e. father and child).

That then causes issue where else is translation/lack of information affect the information that can be derived from the Bible.

Authority is also an important part of it. If I said X and then X is proven wrong (and accepted), then what else might I be wrong with. This has the over all effect of undermining my authority. This was a big deal for the Catholic Church and therefore the center of the Universe debate/suppression.

[PeterMP]

Real science is not to be feared by anyone or any religion. Theories are dangerous.

(waiting patiently for the comment....religion is theory too)

Maybe I'm missing something, but how do you separate science from theories?

[Larry]

I will say this, though...there are a lot of "secularists" who will use science to disprove the existence of God...

Can you invent even an imaginary scientific discovery that could possibly disprove the existence of God?

[Larry]

Because the literal reading for the Bible, which includes the idea that the Earth is 6,000 of years old, (based on adding up the expected ages of the people on the Earth in the "begat" sections of the Bible) pre-dates the scientific idea that the Earth is billions of years old.

Essentially, you are ending their religion of a Bible that can be read directly and is completely accurate (based on the English translation because I've read the Greek word doesn't even indicate direct descendency (i.e. father and child).

That then causes issue where else is translation/lack of information affect the information that can be derived from the Bible.

Authority is also an important part of it. If I said X and then X is proven wrong (and accepted), then what else might I be wrong with. This has the over all effect of undermining my authority. This was a big deal for the Catholic Church and therefore the center of the Universe debate/suppression.

You mean that the opposition to things like evolution is (in your opinion) based on something equivalent to scientists arguing against Einstein because Newton said something different, and they don't want to admit that Newton didn't know everything?

[wysknz1]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how do you separate science from theories?

fact vs fiction

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Can you invent even an imaginary scientific discovery that could possibly disprove the existence of God?

Are you even slightly denying that scientific theories and discoveries are indeed used by some to portray a belief in God as archaic and nonsense?...You can't be leading that sheltered a life.

[techboy]

Essentially, you are ending their religion of a Bible that can be read directly and is completely accurate (based on the English translation because I've read the Greek word doesn't even indicate direct descendency (i.e. father and child).

It's the Hebrew, not the Greek, and it doesn't end a belief in a Bible that is completely accurate.

It ends a particular reading of that Bible.

Everyone knows that parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, and other parts not (Jesus is not really a door, for instance). The real question becomes which is which.

Usually this is pretty easy ("Jesus went down to Galilee" vs. Jesus' parables), but occasionally it's not.

It's even possible to read Genesis as literal history and still not think the Earth is 6000 years old.

The conflict arises because some Christians treat their interpretations of Scripture as if they were as holy as God Himself, and their skills at reading as perfect as Him.

It is perfectly legitimate to believe in either a young or old Earth from a Biblical point of view, of course, but some seem to take that young Earth view to extremes, by trying to attack science.

[PeterMP]

You mean that the opposition to things like evolution is (in your opinion) based on something equivalent to scientists arguing against Einstein because Newton said something different, and they don't want to admit that Newton didn't know everything?

Well, in some cases, in fact, it would be like Newton arguing against Einstein because he wouldn't want to admit that he didn't know everything, especially when such an admission would is tied to things even beyond pride.

You see this in science a reasonable amount. There are pretty famous examples even in human evolution. There were cases where real famous scientists that wanted to interpert the fossil record as a direct line of hominid evolution to humans (there were no hominids that were complete "dead ends" that weren't ancestors or somehow contributed to the human races genetic information). The difference is that there aren't millions to billions of people that are barely educated on the subject involved (not to suggest that most Christians are uneducated over all or stupid, but that really even a year or two of college level biology doesn't really give somebody a full understanding/appreciation of the true standing of evolutionary theory and most people don't even have that.)

[PeterMP]

fact vs fiction

So theories are fiction?

[PeterMP]

It's the Hebrew, not the Greek, and it doesn't end a belief in a Bible that is completely accurate.

It ends a particular reading of that Bible.

Everyone knows that parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, and other parts not (Jesus is not really a door, for instance). The real question becomes which is which.

Usually this is pretty easy ("Jesus went down to Galilee" vs. Jesus' parables), but occasionally it's not.

It's even possible to read Genesis as literal history and still not think the Earth is 6000 years old.

The conflict arises because some Christians treat their interpretations of Scripture as if they were as holy as God Himself, and their skills at reading as perfect as Him.

It is perfectly legitimate to believe in either a young or old Earth from a Biblical point of view, of course, but some seem to take that young Earth view to extremes, by trying to attack science.

Okay (I know it seems pretty stupid, but I like to respond to posts that correct me correctly because occassionaly you see the 'Well, you never admit you are wrong.' comment).

[Larry]

Are you even slightly denying that scientific theories and discoveries are indeed used by some to portray a belief in God as archaic and nonsense?...You can't be leading that sheltered a life.

Well, I've seen people scoffing at concepts like the Universe being created in the span of six, eight-hour work days (with lunch breaks), or of the Earth's water raining sufficient to flood all of the land area of the planet, simultaneously, for a month, before obediently flowing back into their assigned oceans.

I've probably scoffed at them, myself. It could be claimed that I just did.

But I've never heard somebody claim that their disbelief of things like that translates in any way to proving a negative, let alone proving the non-existence of God.

If somebody were to make such a claim, I'd probably scoff at them, too.

[ACW]

Science USES theories.

And "begat", so THAT'S how it's done.

[techboy]

Well, I've seen people scoffing at concepts like the Universe being created in the span of six, eight-hour work days (with lunch breaks), or of the Earth's water raining sufficient to flood all of the land area of the planet, simultaneously, for a month, before obediently flowing back into their assigned oceans.

That's something I've never understood, really. It is God we're talking about, right? Omnipotent creator of the Universe and everything in it? He could do that, but he couldn't part the Red Sea for Moses?

It seems that some Christians, especially, believe in God, but don't believe He can actually do anything. Weird.

This is not to say, of course, that I think it's invalid to look at what science and other natural knowledge can tell us when reading the Bible, especially when considering passages that can be read in more than one way.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Well, I've seen people scoffing at concepts like the Universe being created in the span of six, eight-hour work days (with lunch breaks), or of the Earth's water raining sufficient to flood all of the land area of the planet, simultaneously, for a month, before obediently flowing back into their assigned oceans.

I've probably scoffed at them, myself. It could be claimed that I just did.

But I've never heard somebody claim that their disbelief of things like that translates in any way to proving a negative, let alone proving the non-existence of God.

If somebody were to make such a claim, I'd probably scoff at them, too.

If enough people post in here, you'll probably see it happening right here in this thread lol...

The overriding sentiment used by those who take that stance is usually along the lines of "How can anyone still believe in God with all that science has proven?"...And it's echoed everywhere from late-night comedians to message boards to radio talk shows to college campuses. Again, not trying to say that everyone falls into one of two camps or anything, but I'm sure feeling as if your religious beliefs are being ridiculed with each new scientific discovery would start to effect pretty much all of us, I would think...

[techboy]

Again, not trying to say that everyone falls into one of two camps or anything, but I'm sure feeling as if your religious beliefs are being ridiculed with each new scientific discovery would start to effect pretty much all of us, I would think...

The solution to this problem is to read less Richard Dawkins and more Francis Collins.

[Dan T.]

It seems like science and religion are diametrically opposed in this sense... Science is grounded in healthy skepticism, always questioning, and a "prove it" mentality. Religion is grounded in absolute faith:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

(Hebrews 11:1)

Thankfully, most people of faith have been able to reconcile the two.

[Larry]

If enough people post in here, you'll probably see it happening right here in this thread lol...

The overriding sentiment used by those who take that stance is usually along the lines of "How can anyone still believe in God with all that science has proven?"...And it's echoed everywhere from late-night comedians to message boards to radio talk shows to college campuses. Again, not trying to say that everyone falls into one of two camps or anything, but I'm sure feeling as if your religious beliefs are being ridiculed with each new scientific discovery would start to effect pretty much all of us, I would think...

Now I do recall a scene from Arthur Clarke's Childhood's End. (IMO, the best novel written. Strongly recommended.)

Mankind has been contacted by ETs. The ETs are benevolent, they're not here to conquer or eat us or anything. But they're not here to hand up all of their technology and welcome us into The Federation, either. Instead, they stay on their ship, having only occasional, voice-only contact with the SecGen of the UN.

But some people continue to loudly announce that The Overlords, as they've come to be called, are evil in some secret way. A great deal of those saying this are religious leaders of various faiths.

in one of their conversations, the SecGen muses with the head Overlord ("Supervisor") about why it seems that religion is scared of so many things.

The Supervisor says that in his experience, most religious leaders are worried (to express it as basely as possible) about losing their position. And his theory is that such people are worried that advanced knowledge and technology won't so much disprove their religion as to simply reduce the number of Cosmic Mysteries to the point that people no longer feel the need for religion.

The quote that I remember from the book was "As far as I'm aware, Human Science has never conclusively disproven the existence of Thor. But he has few followers today."

[Destino]

Religion and science will always be on opposite sides because of one thing... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which sounds great until you realize there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Science is equipped only to deal with the natural order of things. If anything exists above that and outside of any control or predictability science will not be able to deal with it and will deny it happened.

Now add to the above the idea of God. Something that is completely free from any of the restraints of what we accept as reality. There are no laws governing this being. No physics, no biology, etc etc etc. Entirely independent from his own creation. How does science deal with that?

And what makes anyone think that this being could be understood by man at all? If you believe the Christian version then this being imparted some rules and a son to us. It never claims that the whole of God will be understood by any man. We could have as much a chance of truely understanding the nature of God as an ant has of understanding ours.

As for the specific age of the earth question, techboy nailed it. One particular way of reading the bible has it's panties in a bunch over the possibility they may be wrong. (pride is a *****)

[AzSkinsFan63]

Maybe it's because evolution is as much a belief system as any religion but they try to claim otherwise by saying it's fact, when those same facts can be just as disputed as any religion.

So the debate is no longer even allowed. Yet it still is debatable.

[Larry]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

(Hebrews 11:1)

Faith is believing what you know ain't true.

- Mark Twain.

But, back to the subject. One part of my puzzlement is that I can't even imagine a scientific discovery that can't be responded to with "God made it that way".

That's why, IMO, it's impossible for Science to ever disprove God.

(And why I can't figure out why some people, who at least claim to have a lot more faith than I do, insist on acting like One More Discovery will mean the end of their religion.)

[Dan T.]

Maybe it's because evolution is as much a belief system as any religion but they try to claim otherwise by saying it's fact, when those same facts can be just as disputed as any religion.

So the debate is no longer even allowed. Yet it still is debatable.

Evolution as a belief system? Interesting perspective. I totally disagree with the premise, but an interesting perspective.

Science still calls it the "theory of evolution", because it hasn't been proven as fact with a scientific certainty. Legions of skeptical scientists have built an overwhelming body of knowledge supporting it, but you know those wacky scientists, they won't conclude ANYTHING without absolute verifiable proof. So we're stuck with only a theory, leaving the door open for Jesus riding a dinosaur.