What happens when a Christian accepts science?

Interesting- on another thread, there is a very observant Christian arguing that global warming is a hoax, and explains his views over carbon charts that describe the planet being billions of years old. However, he hasn't rectified those carbon charts with his other views that the planet is 6,600 years old and created in 7 days.

Science is kind of in our face everyday- I'm not sure I understand how those who believe in the Old and New testament, word for word, merge those beliefs with everyday science and biology.
 
Good for him. More people need to stand up against ignorance and superstition.

Genesis is a good allegorical story on how the world was created. Time line is just a bit off though, by more than several millions of years.

FYI, I'm a Christian that understands that evolutionary theory (which has NOTHING to do with the origins of life by the way, only how it has progressed) is correct. I use the word "understand" and not "believe" because evolutionary theory has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with observable facts.
 
Excellent comments, jmatt.

Francis Collins is a devout Christian and was the director of the Human Genome Project. In his book The Language of God he basically said that the conversation about evolution is over. It happened. And as jmatt correctly states, it doesn't have anything to say about the origins of life, only about its adaptations and mutations and changes over vast stretches of time.

So I don't see why religious belief would be threatened by this, but I think talk of evolution (and misunderstanding of its claims) has caused some believers to feel antagonism towards science in general. It's no wonder that our country is becoming scientifically illiterate.
 
Did you expect anything less of his fellow Christian believers? If the shoe was on the other foot and a evolutionist said they believed in creation, I imagine the response would be the same. Both are taken on faith, since neither can be proven to be absolute.
 
Science is kind of in our face everyday- I'm not sure I understand how those who believe in the Old and New testament, word for word, merge those beliefs with everyday science and biology.
__________________________________________________

the only christians that believe this are the very strict evangelical christians. no other denomination believes this., catholics, who make up the majority of the christian faith, do not believe this. i was taught at a young age during confirmation that the bible is filled with stories to teach life lessons, faith and morality.
 
Evolution is scientific fact with physical evidence to support its claims.
__________________________________________________

is the origin of man through evolutionary processes scientific fact?
 
I'm trying to figure out where the story is, exactly. If his denomination believes that creationism is a bedrock idea, then he needs to move on. Isn't that what normally happens when someone comes to disagree with the prevailing view?

Does the church, or seminary, not have the right to be protective of its bedrock ideas within its own community?--just as a company is free to sanction or fire workers for saying things against official company policy?

He's free to move on. Which he has. What's the issue?
 
But it's also very typical of GT to use a thread title like "What happens when a Christian accepts science?"...As if this is what happens whenever any Christian "accepts science". As if accepting science is a binary proposition in the first place. As if all Christians are opposed to all science. As if GT knows what on Earth he's talking about. As if the producers of the story know what they're talking about.

The report says that "two-thirds of Americans say that [the bible] is literally true." That's incorrect. Gallup says that only one-third of Americans believe that the bible is literally true, and that a majority of the remainder believe that it is instead the inspired word of God.
 
mop,

Truth doesn't matter to McBrett, or to most of the rest of them. If you get down to brass tacks, they don't even really believe in the idea of truth to begin with, or good, or what philosophers used to refer to as natural right.

I suspect we won't even need to press very hard to get them to admit as much. In fact, I suspect they will volunteer it.
 
well Coel....i hope you are mistaken. i guess we will see if McBrett explains himself. i had the thought that he might be referring to me, but i have addressed this specific stereotype of me so many times that i am just about certain that he would not be talking about me. yet the only outspoken young earther i can think of is Monahorns, who i respect greatly, but i don't think Monahorns has ever tried to argue from carbon charts and i don't think any of us would call global warming a "hoax." so i am really curious as to who McBrett has in mind.
 
Interesting- on another thread, there is a very observant Christian arguing that global warming is a hoax, and explains his views over carbon charts that describe the planet being billions of years old.

Exactly. Confirmation bias run amok.
 
Oh Coelacanth and mop-

If only you guys were capable of discussing things that contradict your beliefs without resorting to character assassinations, you'd look more confident about your beliefs.

That's as far as I'm going to acknowledge your mud slinging on a topic that clearly has you a bit sensitive.
 
McBrett...you can't back up your claim? you made a very specific claim and yet you refuse to back it up?

by the way, nothing in my posts in any way attacked your character....you are either very sensitive or you didn't read too carefully. my posts ask you to clarify because i am not aware of a young earther who calls global warming a hoax and also uses carbon charts that go back billions of years. those are 3 different facts you threw out there and i just don't see who they describe at all.

and you shouldn't talk about character assassinations considering our history my friend.
 
mop- perhaps if you didn't confuse every comment of involving you, or yourself- you wouldn't be confused so often. I was vague about a poster on purpose- and will keep it that way. Cry all you like- I'm taking the high road by not calling someone out on something that is, in my opinion, a little embarrassing.
 
ok...well i am satisfied i suppose. i read all of those threads and have no idea who you are talking about. most AGW skeptics self-consciously say that we DO believe in global warming, just not that man is a primary driver. most of us believe in an old earth. but i guess if you found one poster who you think of as self-contradictory and somehow this represents skeptics or Christians to you, or makes some general statement, that is your choice. but man is that a strange logic thread.....
 
mcbrett,
you were just asked to say to whom you were referring on other threads. I usually stay off of the AGW threads so I don't know the posters very well. So either you were referring to an actual poster, or you were making up a strawman. I don't see how that is a personal attack against you.

GT,
I have a question. Isn't the Theory of Evolution, and evolution in general predicated on the belief (principle) of 'random selection'? I mean the basis premise is that evolution including speciation occurs based on random selection and time, right? I am not officially trained in science so I am asking, not at all trying to accuse, just learn.
Also, isn't the theory based on a premise or underlying a priori assumption that nothing exists save matter? I mean there is no outside (the space/time) continuum effecting the process of creation of living beings, correct?
 
For example, if hypothetically someone were to say "Actually I believe Jesus was a normal guy and he is 100% dead, and that when we die- we are dead and that's it"- he would probably not be very safe in some parts of the country.
__________________________________________________

This isnt saudi arabia. try saying just a swear word over there.
 
I care a lot more about our standards than those of SA- and yes general- there are parts of the US that discriminate against those who aren't Christian- be it another religion or secular.
 
BOO,
As was explained to me growing up, the theory of evolution (the scientific theory not just the process), was natural selection. This is what I was mistakenly remembering as random selection. It was also explained to me as not allowing any outside influence. Thus, I always thought of science as hostile to the 'why' as explained by Christianity.
This is why I was asking GT from a science point of view. He did a great job explaining how both can exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top