Science

[flogger]

I'm trying to understand why so many Christians deny science.

The thing I like about Islam is that all science is seen to be part of Allah's plan. I'm surprised that Christians don't believe that God could be responsible for something like THE BIG BANG. THE BIG BANG did happen-but you have to remember that all we can trace the universe back to is the BIG BANG-we have no idea where the matter came from that produced the BIG BANG. It had to have come from somewhere. I say God is responsible for the BIG BANG. I don't understand why Christians have to deny science? I don't understand it at all!!!

 

[Turbo]

Many people deny the Big Bang theory because of science. The same goes for Darwinian evolution.

Unfortunately, many people wrongly use the word "science" as a synonym for "evolution" and "the big bang."

 

[Ninjashadow]

I happen to think that God DID cause the Big Bang. I don't see that God and the Big Bang are mutually exclusive. If one really looks at science, it points towards an Intelligent Designer.

 

[Turbo]

I'm disturbed by Christians who deny the Bible's historical account.

 

[Ninjashadow]

I'm not denying the Biblical account of anything.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

I happen to think that God DID cause the Big Bang. I don't see that God and the Big Bang are mutually exclusive.

But according to Big-Bangers, this event took place billions of years ago. Do you buy that?

If one really looks at science, it points towards an Intelligent Designer.

Agreed.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

I'm not denying the Biblical account of anything.

Just so you know, I was speaking generally. My comment wasn't in response to yours. I hadn't seen your post until after I posted mine.

 

[Ninjashadow]

I don't know whether or not it took place billions of years ago or not. But I do think that God could say, "BOOM" and cause the big bang, if you get what I mean.

 

[Ninjashadow]

Ok, Turbo, my apologies.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

I don't know whether or not it took place billions of years ago or not. But I do think that God could say, "BOOM" and cause the big bang, if you get what I mean.

But according to Scripture, God created the heavens and the earth and everthing in them in six days. And the Bible gives a historical account through genealogies, king's reigns, etc. that places Creation Week around 4000 B.C.

 

[Ninjashadow]

Originally posted by Turbo

But according to Scripture, God created the heavens and the earth and everthing in them in six days. And the Bible gives a historical account through genealogies, king's reigns, etc. that places Creation Week around 4000 B.C.

That may very well be the fact, but God could still have caused it to bang forth. Scientist could be wrong about the age of the universe.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

That may very well be the fact, but God could still have caused it to bang forth. Scientist could be wrong about the age of the universe.

Sure. Just be careful using the term "Big Bang." It carries a lot of naturalistic connotations, including the "billions of years" timeline, the notion that the earth was formed after the sun and the stars, etc.

Similarly, I belief that the different breeds of dog have a common ancestor, and but I wouldn't say I believe in evolution.

 

[Ninjashadow]

I see your point. But God could have created the universe as a singularity.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Science

Originally posted by flogger

I'm trying to understand why so many Christians deny science.

It's because science tells us some fundamentally different things about the nature of the universe and life than the literal interpretations of fairy tales and superstitions found in the Bible.

I say God is responsible for the BIG BANG.

There is no evidence for this. There is also no evidence for God.

Science is about evidence. This is why science does not introduce God into theories. Why introduce a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?

One purpose of science is to explain things without having to resort to supernatural possibilities. Once the supernatural is invoked, science would stop looking for possible natural explanations.

 

[The Berean]

Originally posted by Turbo

Many people deny the Big Bang theory because of science. The same goes for Darwinian evolution.

Unfortunately, many people wrongly use the word "science" as a synonym for "evolution" and "the big bang."

Exactly my view. A-fundies equate evolution with "science". I especially love their silly accusations that Christians deny scinece. As an engineer I was educated in mathematics, science, and logic. I use this knowledge and skills to solve daily problems that are based in science. In school I studied therodynamics, heat transfer, structual mechanics, manufacturing processes, all based in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. I am also a Christian so I take offense when A-fundies say I deny science. Please get real...

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by The Berean

Exactly my view. A-fundies equate evolution with "science". I especially love their silly accusations that Christians deny scinece. As an engineer I was educated in mathematics, science, and logic. I use this knowledge and skills to solve daily problems that are based in science. In school I studied therodynamics, heat transfer, structual mechanics, manufacturing processes, all based in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. I am also a Christian so I take offense when A-fundies say I deny science. Please get real...

There is a difference between applied science and research science. Evolutionary science is both pure research and applied.

When fundies are criticized for denying science, it is because many have denied or misinterpreted some very basic and well established principles in fields such as physics, biology, geology, and astronomy.

 

[The Berean]

Originally posted by Skeptic

There is a difference between applied science and research science. Evolutionary science is both pure research and applied.

When fundies are criticized for denying science, it is because many have denied or misinterpreted some very basic and well established principles in fields such as physics, biology, geology, and astronomy.

Skeptic,

Can you give an example of an application of evolutionary science? :think:

 

[Mr Jack]

I can give two.

1. The combating of resistance; either antibiotic-resistance in diseases, or poison-resistance in vermin.

2. Genetic algorithm approaches to problem solving.

 

[PureX]

When a religion is based on lies, and these lies are exposed by reality, then the participant will either have to let go of or drastically modify his religion to remain rational and honest, or else he'll have to deny reality itself. Some folks are so weak, and therefor so dependant upon their religion to help them live their lives, that they're simply too frightened to let their religion go even after it's been exposed as irrational, dishonest, and unhealthy.

It's like asking a dope addict to give up his dope, because the dope is clearly harming him even as it creates the illusion that it's "good" for him. The dope addict has become so dependant on the illusion that the dope creates that he can't let it go even as it's killing him.

 

[Stratnerd]

Originally posted by Turbo

Many people deny the Big Bang theory because of science. The same goes for Darwinian evolution.

Unfortunately, many people wrongly use the word "science" as a synonym for "evolution" and "the big bang."

Really? So what have you seen that falsifies the evolutionary and big bang hypotheses?

But if we are talking about creationists.. they primarily reject evolution and big bang cosmology because they conflict with scripture and nothing more. Many creationists organizations make you sign an oath that you accept scripture as Truth before you can work for them.

And you guys complain about bias in publishing!

Also, there are many applications of evolutionary theory - one important one is seeking biopharmaceuticals - by knowing the realtionships among plants we can identify those species that are likely to have biologically active compounds similar to those already discovered in a related species.