Forever Faithful: A Question for Creationists

quote:

---

Science does not have all of the answers.
  —Cromwell

---

Of course not. This is why there are new scientists emerging from universities every year. If everything were already known then scientists would not be needed. In fact, I would bet that almost every scientist enjoys the fact that we don't know everything. Maybe next time you read the Bible you can tell us what it says about quantum fluctuations around the event horizon within a black hole. Then you can show us how the Bible is a better science text than current scientific theories.But let me ask you this. If you had a bad sore throat who would you go to? A doctor trained in the sciences or a witch doctor trained in the supernatural? For a field that doesn't know everything, it still knows quite a bit, enough to earn your trust when it comes to your mortal health.

Not picking on anyone in particular, but I thought the title of this subthread was quite ironic. It should be spelled "infinite". Anyway, on to the response.

quote:

---

It certainly doesn't have the answers to give reason to deny an eternal God in comparison to the acceptance of an eternal endless universe and /or realm beyond.Do you personally have an answer to this?

---

Science says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a diety. Science only becomes a problem when people try to use scientific evidence to show that there is a diety. Creationism fits such a bill, in that it states that God's role in creation can be tested by science. What has happened is that the creationist's hypotheses have been falsified by the data. Normally, a hypothesis falsified by the data is thrown out, but because of the religious connotation of creationism it has hung around among a small percentage (<0.1%) of the scientific field. Without a religious underpinning, a 6,000 year old earth with immutable kinds would not even be talked about. It is the fault of creationists, not evolutionists, that there is friction between science and religion. If creation "scientists" followed wrote scientific methods, then there would be know disagreement about species diversity.More philisophically, science is not about the TRUTH. That is, science will never try and tell us what the meaning of life is. Science is not meant to help guide human interaction or happiness. However, science does answer questions about how the natural world operates. In my opinion, science is the best tool for figuring out the truth behind what makes nature work while spirituality is a tool for figuring out how to use our mortal lives, the bigger TRUTH. I see no reason why the two realms should be mixed, as is shown by the number of christians, hindus, muslims, etc. that accept evolution as an accurate theory.

quote:

---

The bible is not a book about science,but one that is a guide for our well being and more importantly the question of what is known as universal sovereignty.

---

If the Bible is not a science book, why should scientific theories adhere to the Bible? The Bible can still be true, even if the events in the Bible did not take place. Like you said, the Bible is about universal sovereignty, sovereignty of God over people's lives and sovereignty over morals, not sovereignty over how nature operates. God and Jesus taught us how to live, not how life came to be.

quote:

---

I don't see the witch doctor as a comparison with a God of order,but back down to earth.I wouldn't go to the witch doctor,if i had a sore throat.(In reality i go to the doctor because i have no alternative.)

---

You do have a choice. You can pray to God for a cure. Since God knows everything and science does not know it all, wouldn't this be the better approach? The fact that you do go to a doctor means that you trust the scientific method, which resulted in the antibiotics that you will be prescribed. Also, why not a witch doctor? You can never falsify the presence of healing spirity who is controlled by the witch doctor. This is the problem that science faces, every religion has an equal claim on supernatural truth. If science were to start accepting dieties as a reliable mechanism, it would have to consider witch doctors and catholic priests on even ground. We would go from one creation account to hundreds, all with equal evidenciary support (their diety is not falsifiable). It would seem that creationists are just as exclusionary as evolutionists. While creationism excludes 200 dieties, evolutionists exclude 201.

quote:

---

So i've come here (to the doctor)to see if science has the answers to give,but you've already admitted that it doesn't know everything.It is therefore as infallible and as make beleivable (at this moment of time) as the theory of creationism (at this moment of time) it condemns so as fantasy.

---

The Bible is fallible as well, as it was written by men. Personally, I prefer thinking of the Bible as fallible. Not because I can ignore it, but because the people writing the Bible also have the same qualities as I do. Just for example, the catholic church thought the earth was the center of universe and used Bible verses to support it. What is interesting is that people's faith is not hurt by the sun being the center of the solar system, and the solar system not being the center of the universe. Should we not trust the Bible because it was wrong about the position of the Earth? Of course not, this was due to the fallibility of man, not a mistake by God.As to science, it does have some things right. If the Big Bang Theory ends up being wrong, does this mean that bacteria actually don't cause disease? If the Theory of Relativity is wrong, does that mean our telephones will stop working? You have conflated incomplete knowledge into no knowledge. Even among christian sects there is still a large debate about the importance of faith over works. I would never claim that internal bickering about theology means that the christian faith is without any knowledge. Secondly, the fact that science claims incomplete knowledge should tell you that scientists are being honest. Without honesty and objectivity, new theories would be impossible.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-23-2004]

quote:

---

Surely scientists can only condemn if they prove their own reasonings and evidence as infallible?

---

Actually, it is the opposite. Science can condemn religiously driven science because creationists claim infallibility. Science freely admits it could be wrong. This is why theories are continuously tested by new evidence and are never accepted as 100% proven. Science's statment that it is not perfect is actually one of its better attributes, as compared to people who claim they are right and nothing will ever budge them.

quote:

---

We don't claim we are perfect,we claim that God is perfect.

---

Scientists don't think they are perfect either, that is why we have a process called peer review. Within this system, before a scientific paper is published it must pass through a review board that decides if the science was done correctly. On top of that, the exact methodology that the scientist used must be included. This allows anyone to repeat the work that the other scientist did. Science is a field where no one trusts anyone else to such a high degree that I am surprised there are theories that everyone agrees on.

quote:

---

If you don't have the facts and proof,it's faith based.That is why we say it is faith verses faith.

---

You may not know this, but gravity is still a theory. So would you say that when you go down a set of stairs you are putting faith in the theory of gravity? Scientists ACCEPT the theory of evolution because it makes reliable predictions about what they observe every day in the field, just like you accept the theory of gravity because it has never let you down (pardon the pun). It is actually more accurate to say that scientists TRUST the theory of evolution because they have tested it. It is not faith versus faith, but trust (evo) vs. faith (creo).

quote:

---

We know that scientists admit science is not perfect and that they don't have or know all the answers.So, you must have faith in a certain idea or ideas that lead up to your belief.

---

Scientists freely admit that they don't know everything. If they said they knew everything they would be out of a job. Scientists construct models that they test. If the model passes those tests, then the theory is deemed trustworthy. No scientific model or theory is ever taken on faith, except by the non-scientific laity which would rather take the words of scientists than to delve into the problem themselves. At its roots, the theory of evolution is a model that makes reliable predictions and is able to explain ALL of the data within the biological sciences. As soon as the theory of evolution is no longer able to do this, it will get chucked. Would you throw away your faith if there were contradictory evidence? Of course not, because you have faith unlike the conditional trust that scientists have in their theories.

quote:

---

Yes,the bible states truth to us in our view of what truth is,just like what your belief tells you. The only major difference is that we believe God is God of all,where as you believe that animals and people are basically related to each other and that people are really animals.Your faith is based on this and the idea that life came into being by chance.

---

I will admit that my christian faith has waned appreciably in the last 15 years. However, none of this is due to my interpretation of nature through the lens of evolutionary biology. Faith is a belief in the absence of evidence while scientific theories are models supported by evidence. With respect to spirituality, I practice as you do, following my heart instead of scientific theories. However, when it comes to describing nature I rely on logic and evidence as explanatory tools. For me, nature and spirit are mutually exclusive and don't cross barriers. My opinion, and feel free to deny it, but you seem to tie the two together. You seem to indicate that your faith is tied into the accuracy of Genesis instead of the Truth of Jesus's teachings. Many christians, agnostics, and athiests agree that how we describe the truth about nature is separate from the theologic Truth of the Bible. It is not faith versus faith, merely two schools of investigation whose goals and methods are polar opposites.I hope this wasn't too muddled. Scientific papers are easy, but I still have a tough time communicating philosophical positions. If you need clarification on any of this, let me know.Have a great weekend,Loudmouth.