Home More advice Religion, Spirituality & Folklore
Ok so I'm stuck on the matter of science and being a christian. Which do I pick because I want to be a scientist but yet with the belief of creationism I'm stuck
*** I think we both can agree that nature when studied objectively , testifies to a design oriented process rather than a random hap-hazard set of events. ***
Why are there only two choices? Why must it be either a designer, or hap-hazard set of events? It is possible to have order and pattern without an intelligent designer. Your logic is flawed, and your conclusion does not use the scientific method. You are jumping from 'there is complexity and order in the universe' (your evidence) to 'it can only have ocurred as a result of an intelligent designer' (your conclusion). Where is the testing of this hypothesis?
*** Einstein deemed as on the most respected scientist that ever walk the face of this planet, came to the conclusion that there is a Superior intelligent Being that courteously grants us the opportunity to capture a glimpse of His divine and immutable character ***
He believed nature was god. At most he was a deist. He believed in science above all else. He certainly didn't deny evolution, or the big bang, and he certainly did not believe in an active god overseeing our lives, nor did he believe in an afterlife.
*** So if energy cannot be created how did the big bang come about? ***
You obviously don't even understand the scientce you trying to discuss. Energy can be created, it is matter that can't be created. Energy is created all the time. Our sun is creating it constantly.
As far as the big bang, we know for a fact that there is expansion going on in the universe, and it is all moving away from a central point. This has been observed. The hypothesis is that all matter gathered into a singularity that eventually imploded like a supernova does, only much much larger scale, and the universe has been expanding ever since. It may reach a point where it all begins to contract again, and eventually come back to a singularity. It may be an infinite cycle of contraction and expansion that has been going on forever.
*** 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy increases in entropy (disorder). This means if you Watch TV, some of the electrical energy is converted into heat energy otherwise called unusable energy. Evolution asserts that since the onset of the big bang, energy is becoming orderly and reusable. A clear Contradiction to science. E.g are we getting any younger? ***
It is very clear you have no idea what you are talking about. First off the second law refers to isolated systems, not the entire universe. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. Evolution is a function of biology, not physics or cosmology. How is energy becoming orderly and reusable in the universe? You make no sense.
*** I realize all that I may have written may only strengthen your position but I’ll rather lean on creation for the very fact that my life is in the hands of a loving God who wants nothing more to show me pieces of his divine character and that despite the horrific condition of the world today, I can rest assured of a life that is centered on Christ is a life that will have eternity and peace. ***
That's great for you... It has nothing to do with science, and never will.
*** As a Christian I test all doctrines and assumptions by the word of God. ***
So you will let your beliefs dictate what facts you will acknowledge, and what facts you will ignore. Science deals in facts, not mythology.
*** You also said evolution is a theory and a fact. If I were to think as a scientist as you said, I would ask myself if that isn’t a contradiction. It has to be a theory or a fact. It can’t be both. ***
Of course it can. Gravity is only a theory, but it is a fact that if I drop something it will fall to the ground. The fact of evolution is that it has been proven to have occurred. The theory of evolution is how exactly it happens, not whether it happens. That fact that it has happened is indisputable based on fossil records. And scientific theories are not just guesses. They only become theories after they have been tested, retested, retested again, peer reveiwed, have not been disproven, and are accepted by experts as the most likely conclusion. Might we gain new knowledge that could change a theory? Sure. But it is not a guess!
But you keep living in your fantasy world, and let the grown ups handle the science.
*** For someone who is all about facts and empirical observations, you have surely master the art of conjectures. You have failed to analyze the quote of Einstein when he made a clear distinction of an intelligent superior being. The last time I check, nature is a manifestation of a designer and the designer himself. ***
I have failed to analyze the quote? There is nothing to analyze. It was an out-of-context quotre that proves nothing. Thanks arachnid for showing with absolute clarity how Enstien felt about religion and god. Believers have been misquoting him on this subject for years. The last ime you checked, you obviously didn't look in the right place.
*** It was apparent while reading your grand exaggerations about the Big Bang theory, that all the points were not based on science but on unscientific claims. Where is your proof or evidence to support these claims? Yes please enlighten me on the myriad of peer reviews on this subject matter? ***
Everthing I said is absolutely based on science. Look up Georges Lemaitre, Alexander Friedmann, and Edwin Hubble. There are tons of material on it. They have even done experiments with particale accelerators that have confimred the theory.
*** Gravity attempts to define the attraction that exists among masses. Scientists are only theorizing on the how” and not the what. There is adequate proof that masses attract each other but scientists are not aware of how this process occurs. The process is fact but the mechanism is a theory ***
Exactly, Gravity is a theory and a fact. Just as evolution is. And scientists are not unaware of how gravity works. They have a theory. But it is a fact that gravity exists. Just as it is a fact that evolution occurs. The theory is how it works.
*** I found this one particularly hilarious. Let’s define a system. A system is a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole. if a system is interdependent entities forming a whole , how can it exist by itself. . no system is Isolated. Show me one??? ***
Try reading the definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. From the Wikipedia page on it: 'In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is ISOLATED from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how much this evening-out process has progressed.'
*** I agree Micro evolution is function of Biology but if I am not mistaken were we not discussing Macro Evolution. Organisms have the ability to adapt to environmental changes but to say that I came from an amoeba I strongly disagree. ***
You can disagree all you want, but you would be wrong. When looking at the various level of strata from the earth's surface, it is easy to trace the development of life. At the deepest levels there is no sign of life. The strata that existed prior to 4 billion years ago show absolutely no signs of life. The first signs of life (single celled organisms) did not show up until 3.8 billion years ago. At about 2.5 million years ago multi-celled organisms first appear. At about 540 million years ago, the first complex organisms appeared, and as we move up the strata, the organisms get more and more complex. This is not disputed by anyone with even the slightest understanding of science. Sorry that you don't fall into this category.
*** if matter cant be created how does the Big Bang explain creating the universe??? I think the world is awaiting your answer on this matter ***
Again, why don't you actually read about the theory instead of just implying things that are not true. The big bang theory does not claim that matter was created at the time. It claims that all matter was gathered into a single mass called a singularity. Just like a black hole. The theory then suggests that some kind of critical mass was reached where everything began to expand at high velocity.
*** The Word of God declares that ALL things is created for him and by him. GENESIS 1 V1-10 ***
Are you not able to discuss science with out dogma? The word of god is a book written by men who knew nothing of the nature of the universe.
I think we both can agree that nature when studied objectively , testifies to a design oriented process rather than a random hap-hazard set of events. Einstein deemed as on the most respected scientist that ever walk the face of this planet, came to the conclusion that there is a Superior intelligent Being that courteously grants us the opportunity to capture a glimpse of His divine and immutable character
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind”. Albert Einstein
Point 1 Lets assume the role as scientist and explore the mass energy formula E = mc2. This equation plainly states that for energy to exist, two components are pivotal: mass and light. Conversely, for mass to exist there needs to be energy and light. The Big bang theory asserts that the universe expand and triggered a set of reactions that continue today, thus we have planet earth. Now you made mention of contradiction earlier, this theory clearly contradict the mass energy formula. For mass to exist there needs to be energy and light and according to the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed but only converted in one form. So if energy cannot be created how did the big bang come about?
Point 2 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy increases in entropy (disorder). This means if you Watch TV, some of the electrical energy is converted into heat energy otherwise called unusable energy. Evolution asserts that since the onset of the big bang, energy is becoming orderly and reusable. A clear Contradiction to science. E.g are we getting any younger?
Point 3 I realize all that I may have written may only strengthen your position but I’ll rather lean on creation for the very fact that my life is in the hands of a loving God who wants nothing more to show me pieces of his divine character and that despite the horrific condition of the world today, I can rest assured of a life that is centered on Christ is a life that will have eternity and peace. Colossians 1:16 for in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him
You have asserted that even the Catholics would disagree with me, but similarly to how scientist test and question assumptions, As a Christian I test all doctrines and assumptions by the word of God. A Christian should live by the Bible and not by doctrines or traditions unless it is in harmony with the Word.. the Bible says2 Timothy 2:15 ”Study to shew thyself approved unto God…”
You also said evolution is a theory and a fact. If I were to think as a scientist as you said, I would ask myself if that isn’t a contradiction. It has to be a theory or a fact. It can’t be both.
Does the design of life and the universe really reflect intelligent design?
The vast majority of species that ever lived failed (went extinct).
In our own bodies, what good is the appendix? Were it not for modern medicine I would of died when I was 5 from and appendicitis. We have this organ that doesn't seem to do us any good but can kill us; a good designer would have left it out! This whole walking upright thing is also problematic. Our backs and spines are insufficiently designed for the task so back problems seem to be an epidemic. A good designer would have given us a much stronger architecture for the task of walking upright. Overloading our genitalia with the tasks of elimination, pleasure, and reproduction has lead to numerous problems and in men plumbing the flexible urethra through the prostate causes blockage when the prostate becomes diseased or injured.We would have far fewer problems if it was either plumbed around or if the section of the urethra that passed through was a rigid tube. In women the urethra is too short allowing bacteria to easily travel up it causing frequent bladder and kidney infections. Most human mouths are not large enough to accommodate our last set of molars or our "wisdom teeth." Most people have to get teeth pulled to make room or will suffer problems the rest of their life.
The reason why all these examples of "bad design" exist is because they were never designed. In natural selection new traits do not develop from scratch, they are modifications of existing traits. We end up with vestigial parts like wings on flightless birds, our own appendix or extra teeth from when we didn't have as good oral hygiene and routinely lost more of them. Other traits are still in the process of adapting like our weak backs. Over time humans with better backs may be more successful so our great-great-great...grandchildren may have good backs that don't trouble them like today. Of course some would say we are devolving. Due to Caesarain sections women with narrow pelvises no longer die is childbirth so every generation fewer women can deliver vaginally. Now that we can wear eyeglasses good eyesight is no longer as important so it is likely that people with bad eyesight that would have been eliminated from the gene pool will be more successful today leading to poorer vision.
All in all there is much more evidence for long and slow evolution than for a recent creation.
For someone who is all about facts and empirical observations, you have surely master the art of conjectures. You have failed to analyze the quote of Einstein when he made a clear distinction of an intelligent superior being. The last time I check, nature is a manifestation of a designer and the designer himself.
It was apparent while reading your grand exaggerations about the Big Bang theory, that all the points were not based on science but on unscientific claims. Where is your proof or evidence to support these claims? Yes please enlighten me on the myriad of peer reviews on this subject matter?
Gravity attempts to define the attraction that exists among masses. Scientists are only theorizing on the "how” and not the "what". There is adequate proof that masses attract each other but scientists are not aware of how this process occurs. The process is fact but the mechanism is a theory
It is very clear you have no idea what you are talking about. First off the second law refers to isolated systems, not the entire universe. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. Evolution is a function of biology, not physics or cosmology. How is energy becoming orderly and reusable in the universe? You make no sense
I found this one particularly hilarious. Let’s define a system. A system is a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole. if a system is interdependent entities forming a whole , how can it exist by itself. . no system is Isolated. Show me one???
I agree Micro evolution is function of Biology but if I am not mistaken were we not discussing Macro Evolution. Organisms have the ability to adapt to environmental changes but to say that I came from an amoeba I strongly disagree.
You obviously don't even understand the scientce you trying to discuss. Energy can be created, it is matter that can't be created. Energy is created all the time. Our sun is creating it constantly
if matter cant be created how does the Big Bang explain creating the universe??? I think the world is awaiting your answer on this matter
The Word of God declares that ALL things is created for him and by him. GENESIS 1 V1-10
For someone who is all about facts and empirical observations, you have surely master the art of conjectures. You have failed to analyze the quote of Einstein when he made a clear distinction of an intelligent superior being.
Look! There's a whole Wikipedia article on Einstein's religious views: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReligiousviewsofAlbertEinstein
Here's some more quotes by him:
""I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.""
""My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.""
or my personal favorite:
""I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.""
The process is fact but the mechanism is a theory
Did you just make our point for us? Thanks!
I found this one particularly hilarious. Let’s define a system. A system is a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole. if a system is interdependent entities forming a whole , how can it exist by itself. . no system is Isolated. Show me one???
Let's assume for one crazy minute that the law of thermodynamics is significant in discussing evolution. We live on a planet, surrounding a star, which gives out a constant supply of usable heat energy. Organisms such as trees absorb that energy and use it to construct complex, organised structures. Locally, they decrease entropy, but at the cost of the increased entropy in our star required to produce the energy they use.
Claiming that thermodynamics prohibits evolution is about as useful as claiming that it makes it impossible to tidy your room.
there are many scientist who are christians and who believe in creation. I totaly understand your confusion, but just remember to stay true to your convictions
No, that's totally the wrong attitude to have as a scientist. Science is all about questioning assumptions, and testing them!
**remember that evolution is a theory and not a fact. you have to accept either of them by faith. **
No, evolution is a theory and a fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionastheoryandfact
by accepting evolution you will be putting your faith in man's(scientist) theories. and denying God as the supreme creator.
Most christians would disagree with you on that point, including the entire catholic church. There's no reason a christian has to take the entire bible literally, or ignore plainly obvious facts because they contradict a naive reading of their holy text.
science only explains the how, but does not answer the why?
Who says there has to be a why?
Amen! We are definitely in the last days!
You asked about dangerous and ignorant - how about this? Many things are justified by fundamentalist christians on the basis of "end days". Ignoring global warming, and unconditionally supporting Israel, to name a couple.
I don’t deny REAL science for any reason. However, I do reject theories that are falsely called “science” that are used to prop up a personal belief.
I'd be willing to bet you can't even coherently explain evolution - and if so, how are you so certain that it's wrong? And why is it that only the science that happens to contradict your religious belief comes up lacking in your assessment? A bit of a coincidence, isn't it?
Check your history. The Catholic Church imprisoned Gallileo.
He didn't say you imprisoned Galileo, he pointed out that the sort of reasoning you espouse - "the bible says otherwise, so it must be wrong" - is what led to the imprisonment (and torture!) of Galileo.
Christianity and the scientific method do look at reality differently.
Christianity says to believe without evidence (faith).
The scientific method says to be skeptical of anything that isn't proven by evidence.
I listened to a young earth creationist speaker tell his audience that they should only accept science when it agrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Whereas a materialist might say to only believe the Bible where it agrees with science and history.
As I said, a lot of scientists who are Christian apply a kind of dualism where they mentally separate the different ways Christianity and science view reality. That is the most common approach. Combining Christianity and science leads to bad religion and bad science. Remember the Catholic church imprisoned Galileo for saying that the Earth isn't the center of the universe and revolved around the Sun. They applied liturgy to science and came to an incorrect conclusion.
Thank goodness you are becoming more and more marginalized everyday.
Amen! We are definitely in the last days!
Your type of belief is dangerous and ignorant.
Really!?! I don’t want to be dangerous and ignorant! Maybe you should fill me in as to what it is that I believe.
You Deny real science simply becasue it interferes with your preconvceived notions of our origins.
I don’t deny REAL science for any reason. However, I do reject theories that are falsely called “science” that are used to prop up a personal belief.
Your type of backwards thinking is what got Gallileo imprisoned.
Check your history. The Catholic Church imprisoned Gallileo. My “backwards thinking” (a complement coming from someone of your thinking) had nothing to do with it since I am not Catholic.
Most of the scientists I know are Christians.
Most Christians I know who are scientists do not expect their religion and their science to agree because they are answers to different questions.
If you look at the Bible like a Science textbook than you will have some problems trying to reconcile it with the various sciences. If your reading of your Bible leads you to the conclusion that the cosmos is thousands of years old instead of billions, that the earth is flat, or that pi=3 than you will have to ignore a great deal of evidence to the contrary. If you view the Bible as a book that contains symbolism, metaphor, and allegory than you can look at the book as more of a lesson on how you should live your life instead a book dictating how the physical universe must behave.
there are many scientist who are christians and who believe in creation. I totaly understand your confusion, but just remember to stay true to your convictions. remember that evolution is a theory and not a fact. you have to accept either of them by faith. to be a good scientist does not mean you have to accept every theory that tthey teach. by accepting evolution you will be putting your faith in man's(scientist) theories. and denying God as the supreme creator. the bible says, you Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. you need to make a choice. will you put your faith in God or man?
While the discussion is interesting and informative the original question was highflyer trying reconcile his metaphysical views with his physical ones.
Thinking a bit more about this I arrived at 3 possibilities.
Use a sort of dualism like I mentioned earlier where your religious and scientific views can be compartmentalized and do not have to agree.
Change to a religious view that doesn't contradict the scientific method.
Switch to pseudoscience where theories and conclusions are molded by your religious dogma.
Einstein entirely missed the boat in quantum mechanics because his pantheistic religious views suggested an orderly universe. Even he was unable to juggle them perfectly.
highflyer the answer to your question is really very simple. if you are looking for a good life and are seeking to take control of your life and to live as you like then leave Christianity.
If on the other hand you are seeking to know God and are aiming at being saved from hell after this life on earth then follow Jesus Christ. There are people out there to tell you that Hell and Heaven are not real and that God does not exist.and Its up to you to accept them or not. But at the end of it all if you find your self in Hell after this life don't ever thing that no one has warned you.
Science does not deal with the issue of God. Science is used to gather information on the natural world through observation and experimentation. However, God is supernatural and thus falls outside the range of science, because something that is supernatural is impossible to proove or disproove. Science and religion are seperate spheres and there is no reason the two should clash.
Additionally, read the paper titled "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." It was written by a famous evolutionary biologist and devout Russian Orthodox Christian.
science only explains the how, but does not answer the why?
the story of creation, dont be confused. it doenst necessarily mean the world was created in 6 days. it was written in a time for people to understand somehow what came first and what not in the begginning of our earth.
one of those 6 days could mean a billion years. translate it as such, and you will see it goes with the scientific theory of the big bang.
some parts of the bible are literal, analogies, metaphors, parables.
you just need to study it quite a bit.
There are plenty of creationists who are scientists. The belief that the universe was created by a higher power does not directly conflict with a modern scientific view of the creation of the universe. It DOES conflict with the more literal translations of the Bible wherein the earth was created in six days and is only 10,000 years old, but the people who take a literal interpretation of Genesis are getting hard to come by these days.
*** True, but here are still a few of us out here. ***
Thank goodness you are becoming more and more marginalized everyday. Your type of belief is dangerous and ignorant. You Deny real science simply becasue it interferes with your preconvceived notions of our origins. Your type of backwards thinking is what got Gallileo imprisoned.
But at the end of it all if you find your self in Hell after this life don't ever thing that no one has warned you.
And if you find yourself in Stovokor for all eternity, you can't claim the klingons never warned you.
The bible is only inconsistent with evolution if you insist on taking Genesis literally, which is absurd. Plenty of christian denominations - and the catholic church - officially state that evolution happened.
Actually being a scientist & achristian has nothing to be conflict about it..so dont hesitate to be a scientist while being christian.. follow your dreams with Jesus in your heart. \m/
you can be a cristian and a scientist, your job doesnt have to be as your religion is. my science teacher is cristian and seh says science has made her become even more cristian
people who take a literal interpretation of Genesis are getting hard to come by these days
True, but here are still a few of us out here.
Science and Christianity can co-exist, as long as you aren't a fundamentalist, who thinks the Bible must be interpreted LITERALLY.
I sort of believe that you can be open to all sort of things, you don't just have to commit to one.
Pick science, and put away the childish religious ideas of your youth. You'll be glad you did.
These two things contradict each other!
I think you need to be a christian=)
