science and inventors (Page 2 of 3)

Hmm... food for thought for sure. I do agree that we don't think as much as we should. I'm a six day Creationist and I believe the world is about 6,000-10,000 years old, and I think this theory adds up well with modern scientific fact. In my opinion, there is just  little too much credit to the Theory of Evolution. I have a lot of questions about it.

Whitewater, I've never noticed AiG being 'god of the gappers', but if that's so, I'm very disappointed. I've read their literature and even been to seminars by them, but I could have missed it.

"absolutely epic and really really loud" ~Zurf
                            ^
                      Life right?
Katie

The difficulty with using a literal reading of the bible is that believers don't. The method of teaching used by all Jewish teachers, including Jesus, was to use metaphor/allegory to drive home a deeper spiritual point. Literalists tend to pick and choose which biblical passages are literal and which are allegorical/metaphoric. This creates difficulties for "fundamentalists", since the literal interpretation is often incorrect. I could quote ad-naseum the contradictions that a literal translation presents, but it has been done many, many times before.

I don't dismiss faith, but I also am aware of the history of the bible, which should be understood before assuming literal interpretation of its content. There are many sublime truths contained in scripture, but the underlying truth is obfuscated by a literal translation. No one believes that waving a painted stick at a flock will cause different colours of animals to be produced, but it is there in the bible.

As I said, reading and interpreting the bible "literally" diminishes its messages.

I can send you on a search for biblical history, and an understanding of the contextual meaning of biblical passages, but I will not debate it with a believer, who, by definition, takes truth on faith. Faith is a touchy subject, I have found.

As to the ToE, without it, our medical sciences would be primitive. Since the mapping of the human genome, our understanding of our lineage has grown immensely. Often, people misunderstand evolutionary processes and the vast amounts of time that create them. As physical conditions change in a given locale, the living populations in these locales do adapt to these changing conditions. Many small changes, which make an organism more viable in its environment, are passed on genetically and organisms do change over time, given enough time. This has been observed in nature and in the lab.

Scripture is not a science book, and trying to make it so creates the "god of the gaps" often spoken of. If you look a little closer at AIG, you will find that the "scientists" involved hold degrees outside the physical sciences, for the most part. No actual biologists, physicists, geologists, geneticists and so on, contribute to AIG. Further, contrary to how science is done, the groups and individuals involved in creationism, which they present as a science, have never presented any papers or theses for peer review from other scientists, and for good reason.

Faith does not equal science.

I hope I didn't offend you, auxi. I support your right to take things on faith, but I do not agree with teaching what is ostensibly religion, as science. The facts and research do not bear up creationism to scientific scrutiny.

Haha, Ww, you're not going to offend me.
Just for the record, I respect your views, also. It's a complicated issue and I know no two people will ever agree 100%.

I do take the Bible literally except of course, when it is clearly written as an allegory, metaphor, parable or poetry - which is usually obvious. The way the account of creation is given in Genesis and throughout the Bible is as if it were a true story - not a fanciful way God decided to entertain us. It's detailed, and coming from my point of view, lines up with science. I do take the Bible on faith. I wasn't there. I don't 'know' that God made man of the dust of the ground, or that Moses crossed the Red Sea, or that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, or that he himself was raised from the dead. I take it on faith. But I also believe there is an awful lot of faith that must go along with the theory of Evolution - which is, btw, just a theory and not proven fact. Unless, of course, one is referring to Micro Evolution.
If the creation account is just an alagory, how can I trust the rest of the Bible? How can I trust that Jesus was the Christ? That's what it boils down to anyway, right?
My biggest problem in the Gap Theory, and/or Day Age Theory is that they don't match up with the Bible in light of science (i.e. fossils; death came as a result of sin, yet 'ancestral' fossils exist. Also, fossilized thorns, which were a direct payback for Adam's sin, etc.) Also, the language used in describing the six days of creation found in Genesis is very explicit in pointing out these were literal 24 hour days (evening and morning were the first day.)

I think we have to choose between Evoluiton and the Bible. I don't see a huge reason to choose Evolution, so I'm going with the Bible. It's really not that harder to believe 'In the beginning God created the heaven an the earth...' than 'In the beginning nothing exploded and created something that changed slowly into you and me...'
You are right, WW, that the Bible is not a science book. But when it speaks on science, I believe it's correct.

As for AiG, they put a lot of science in their literature, but they are a religious organization.

Zurf, I've heard of Reasons to Believe. Hough Ross runs it I think. I found this debate on Ytube of Ross and Ken Ham (who runs AiG). I've not seen it, but it might be fun to watch http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL013D07601ACCCD22

Katie

"absolutely epic and really really loud" ~Zurf
                            ^
                      Life right?
Katie

The problem, auxi, is the word "theory".
The term doesn't mean what you think it does when science is involved.
Gravity is a "theory", but research has supported this theory to the point that we successfully landed men on the moon, using this "theory". In much the same way, biological science uses the "theory" of evolution in everything from finding cures to diseases to remedying heart problems to a host of other medical research. Without the ToE, modern biology would not exist.
A scientific theory arises when a researcher observes verifiable events, records them and uses these observations to support his or her hypothesis. This theory is then published for peer review by other scientists, who examine the data, and attempt to reproduce the same results. If the data is not verifiable, then the theory is debunked. However, for over 150 years, since the publication of "The Descent of Man; On the Origins of Species", all of the scientists on the planet have tried to refute it. In the process, certain refinements are made, but in those 150 years, no scientist has sucessfully refuted the ToE, only strengthened and refined it.
A scientific theory is not simply an unverifiable hypothesis, rather is subject to rigorous peer review, by other scientists who attempt to poke holes in it, or look for missing elements to refine the theory. The theory of evolution has passed this test for 150 years, and has been strengthened by new breakthroughs in genetics; mapping the human genome, as an example.

The problem with the AiG people, the Ken Hamms of the world, is that they do not accept the theory because they believe in a literal bible, and the ToE doesn't mention God, since, of course, God is not scientifically verifiable. The ToE does not attempt to answer the question of the existence of God. It does explain the periodic rise and fall of species over the course of the planet's history, and the adaptation by organisms to a changing environment. That is all it does.

To understand why there are biblical literalists, one must understand that until the advent of the "enlightenment", the bible was the only source of science. Gallilleo proved that the Earth was not the center of the universe, the the planets revolved around the sun, and that moons orbited other planets. The observable movement of the planets in the night sky was verifiable, and replaced the earth-centric universe that biblical literalists took for granted. This was the beginning of modern science, where chemistry replaced alchemy and asttronomy replaced astrology. In the next few centuries after the enlightenment, science made tremendous bounds and human knowledge increased astronomically.

Then, in the latter half of the 19th century, a pastor and religious scholar went through the bible, with an emphasis on prophecy and a reliance on a literal intrepretation of the passages. He worked out, on paper, using rather cherry picked biblical passages, to support what is now called the "rapture" theory. At the time it was written, biblical scholars called it a mishmash, a made up theory without biblical validation.

This pastor then got his theory annotated into a King James bible version known as the Schofield bible, with its footnotes and sidebars, and it seemed all very scholarly, since the annotations were added to the pages of the bible. The Schofield bible was the largest selling bible in the United States for decades, and by the 1890's, a movement formed around this "rapture" idea, They formed the original Fundamentalist movement, which, has, of course, mutated into what we have today in North America' a stiuation where the 20 or so percent of Christians who consider themselves fundamentalists, setting the agenda for less evangelical churches to be pushed into the background.

One must be aware that the original writers of the bible were, some 3800 years ago, bronze age, semi nomads who would consider the modern world incomprehensible. Modern technology did not exist. There were no telescopes, no microscopes, no electricity and no one person or persons who spent their time doing science. We are talking about a fairly primitive society. I speak of the Old Testament here. There was no such thing as science 3800 years ago, at least not in the sense that we think of it today. It would be unwise to read literal truth into stories written then by people who didn't even recognize "zero" in mathematics.

The bible is silent on evolution. Evolution is silent on the bible. They are irrelevant to each other, one concerning itself with the unobservable and unverifiable, ie faith, and the other with the observable and verfifiable, science. They are mutually exclusive, in the final analysis, as Gallilleo observed while recanting his solar centred universe, the Earth still moves.

Thanks for the definitions everybody. I think I have an okay understanding, though. A theory is an attempt to explain why something is or does what it is or does.  Usually not regarded as hard core fact, but expected to be in accord with the laws of nature. The laws of nature are the truths of science. (The Theory of Evolution 'overrules' the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the law of causality.) AiG is not, nor claims to be a scientific theory. It is an apologetics ministry - if I'm correct.
I definitely would never claim to not believe in micro evolution. Things change. Things mutate. There's not a person I know who would dispute this. It's common knowledge and common sense. Coming from a farming family (crops and cattle) I understand the value of hybrid seeds and selective breeding. It's when folks take it a step further and propose one 'kind' of animal/plant/etc. can turn into another 'kind'. I.e. Apelike creature to human. I also have confusion about the Big Bang, which isn't really 'evolution' but the beginning of the evolution. I don't see how something can come from nothing. If it were gas, or a vacuum, or cosmic dust, whatever, it had to come from somewhere.
I hope some of this makes sense. I'm just 19 and not a very good writer, so you'll have to forgive me. If I've been incorrect on anything I apologize - you'll just have to get used to it . Definitely was not intentional.
Have a great night everybody. Thanks CJ for the support!

Katie

"absolutely epic and really really loud" ~Zurf
                            ^
                      Life right?
Katie

The first and seconds laws of thermodynamics are not negated. Earth is not a closed system. It recieves VAST amounts of outside energy from the sun, and the stars. Therefore, these laws do not apply, directly or indirectly, to the ToE.

The big bang is interesting, though. Think of a black hole, in space. It's gravity is so profound, that not even light escapes it. When that point of singularity is arrived at, time ceases to exist, as it slows down until it reaches the singularity. If you think of the big bang as the first singularity, there is no "prior" to the big bang, since time cannot begin until the bang occurs.
An excellent source to read is anything by Steven Hawking relating to black holes and the big bang. This does not break the law of causality in quantum physics.

The problem, as I see it, for literalist Christians, is that they are under the impression that if science conflicts with the bible, then science is wrong, whatever the observable facts are, and if you so believe this, you have every right to do so. My problem is that literalists are not content to abide their beliefs, but insist on selling that belief as science, when it is clearly not, to the point of trying to inject into our school system. If the "creationist" theory had one iota of scientific, ie verifiable, proof, then I would consider it. It simply doesn't. It is religion, dressed up as science, without any actual science being done. To teach it as science is, put it bluntly, a lie.

Katie and CJ, I am in no way trying to de-convert you. For me, science requires evidence, faith does not. As I said in an earlier post, the two do not relate to each other, and should not. Science is never about faith, and faith is never about science. They are not necessarily opposed, rather, it becomes a comparison of apples and oranges, completely different fields.

On the issue of science versus faith for what happens if science and faith disagree, here's my take on it.  I believe that Scriptures are always right.  So we'll start from there.  However, I recognize that Scriptures had a particular audience to whom they were targeted (not me, by the way), that audience existed in a particular time and culture (neither of which is mine), and was written in a particular language well understood by that audience (but not by me).  So, given that it is up to me to understand Scripture to be able to apply it to my life, and given that to do so requires me to trust translators and to research the culture of the original audience then try to myself in their mindset, I recognize that there is a great deal of opportunity for Scripture to be completely right but my understanding of its meaning be wrong. 

Genesis is a good example.  If I read the creation story in Genesis and believe it happened exactly like it was described without consideration of the audience or the message the Lord may have been trying to give them when it was given, then I'm likely to get the message wrong.  So, Scripture can be right but my well-intentioned effort to understand can be wrong.  If there are several ways to understand Scripture (there always is, or everyone who reads it would always understand exactly the same way) and I choose one of those ways, and if there is a huge amount of evidence that has to be ignored or explained away to make my understanding accurate, then it's probably not the evidence or Scripture that's in error.  It's probably me.  Faith requires... faith.  It doesn't require ignorance.  God will NEVER AGAIN require us to remain ignorant.  He did that once - in the garden - and it didn't work out. 

- Zurf

Yes Auxi, some of what you are saying makes sense.  Except saying that the Bible talks about science.  It talks about observations and events and how those played out over time, which are things that might INFLUENCE science, but it's not science itself.   The whole idea of there even being something like what we call science today didn't come around until something like 15 centuries after the events of the New Testament.  Further, ancient Jews frequently altered the order of events of stories, left things out of stories, and highlighted other parts of stories for the purpose of making a point.  It is a habit that is very useful for learning what the author was trying to teach, which is really what readers of Scripture ought to concerns themselves with.  On the other hand, it is a habit that is not useful for using the stories in the way Western minds treat history or scientific thought. 

- Zurf

Edit: Second to last sentence edited for grammar (still terrible, sorry) and last sentence added.

There's something I think we can all agree upon. 

- Zurf

cj - I don't doubt the sincerity of your belief, nor do I condemn it. However, each indivdual reads any book with preconcieved notions, with cultural bias, with environmental and culturally different backgrounds and life experiences. This also happens when people read scripture. The sum of their experiences in life colours their interpretation of what they read, particularly when reading scripture.
The points you made about scripure study are important, but, one must also understand oneself to fully understand those experiences that colour our interpretations. As well, it is vital to understand the times and the world history at the times scriptures were written or compiled. There are some 3500 English versions of the bible alone, each translation bearing the cultural bias of the translators. With such a cacaphony of interpretation, in the final analysis, one must understand that what they interpret from the multitude of voices is exremely personal, and that fact alone would call into question a literal translation.
I have spent a lifetime (61) studying and searching for "truth" and what I have found in my interpretation of the bible is that the central message Jesus propogated was that the Kingdom of God can be found in each of us, and it is up to each of us to not only find it within ourselves, but to look for it in others. If we all bear in mind that we all share that Kingdom, which is in each of us, wars and hatred would cease, and we could live in a peaceful world.
The rigid, dogmatic minutae of ritual and form in religion is what Jesus fought against when he took on the Pharisees, and chased the money changers out of the temple.

By the start of the fourth century, there were innumerable "gospels" in and aound the Roman world. The gnostic books were purged from Christianity by 325 AD, by edict from Constantine and with the compliance of the various bishops who attended the Nicean conferences. This was done to "unify" Christianity with a set of dogma that was universal. All other interpretations of scripture, and the various non-compliant gospels were effectively eliminated.
The books that we now call the bible were debated, often heatedly, to pare down the canon that we recognize today. As an example, the choice of four gospels, was arrived at quite arbitrarily, four being the number of the four elements, ie earth, air, fire and water. The "jewishness: of the church had been pushed aside.
The term "gnostic", for centuries was equated to heresy. Gnostic believers thought that the secret wisdom of Jesus was the basis for their seperateness from the other, to them, simpler beliefs of non-gnostics. They paid the price and were virtually eliminated, along with all their gospels.
The New Testament, it must be understood, did not exist as a collection until the fourth century. The gospels that we now use as scripture were, for the most part, writtten at least a generation removed from being contemporary with the life of Jesus; some as much as 100 years after Jesus' death or more. This in and of itself does not make them invalid, but when reading and studying them, one must be aware that these books were written and re-written several times before being canonized as scripture. The "original" books of the gospels were already interpreted in disparate cultures, and in different contexts.
Jesus central message of love one another, or that which you do to the least of my brethren you have done to me still come through. Early Christianity was initially a Jewish sect. Jesus was, to his core, a Jew. By the fourth century, that Jewishness was purged from the religion. Pagan holidays were incorporated into Christianity, even the date of the "12 days of Christmas" come from the Saturnalia, the feast days surrounding the winter solstice.
I'm not really trying to de-construct the Bible, simply trying to understand its roots, and thereby gain a deeper understanding of the central message it contains. Christianity, with its message of peace and brotherhood is still the central message. Much of our modern interpretation of that message has been overlain with "tradition", which subtly changed the message to conform to the dogmatization of that message. The simple truth of its message is still valid, but biblical scholars understand that our modern interpretations of scripture are different than what was the original import of what was a radical departure from existing beliefs. When Christianity became exclusive, rather than inclusive, that central message of hope was put on the back shelf, in favour of uniformity, rather than diversity.
I suppose that for me, personally, the bible is not the literal "word of God". If interpreted literally, the bible uses phrases like "God spake" or "thus sayest the Lord", but is not written in the first person by God. By some mystical process, early scholars took books of wisdom and knowledge and layered them with an attempt at uniformity. I agree somewhat with cj - one can come to an understanding of sorts of the mind of God, but the literal meaning must be secondary in order to gain this understanding. I contend, though, that my interpretation is as valid as the next, because I have reasoning powers
In this, then, I understand the "gnostic" gospels reason for being. Gnostics recognized that the deeper understanding of Jesus' message was not reliant on dogma, but rather on personal awareness of the complexity of that message. Did they get it right? For them, yes. Their interpretation of Jesus' life was what they saw and understood. The disparity was the result of three centuries of thought and study, and they came to different conclusions about the nature and mission of Jesus, prior to the canonization of what we now call the Bible.

<= Amazed that this discussion is still civil. Well done, Chordie folk.