Hello Flyer,
Flyer75 writes:
The more I read on this board and have done some very new studying on my own, the more I realize that the issue isn't whether science can prove or disprove something, but whether man is choosing science or God
Admittedly, this isn't the topic of discussion, but I feel that you are making a huge mistake, so I can't resist responding to you on this.
What you have done is set up a false dichotomy. You say "Science" or "God", as if the two were interchangeable but mutually exclusive. They're not.
Science and faith fill two separate roles. You can accept science (presumably you're using a computer to type your posts), but it doesn't replace religious faith. Conversely, while I don't consider the Bible (or any ancient scripture) to be an authority on issues of modern science, I do believe my faith has given me more meaning in life, gives me moral guidance, and inspires me to live for a greater purpose. I therefore do not see a conflict between science and faith.
In truth, you don't actually believe accepting scientific truths and believing in God are mutually exclusive. I suspect what you are referring to is a small subset of scientific truths that conflict with what you perceive as biblical Truth. As such, you generally have no problem accepting science as a means to uncover truth about reality. However, when the same rigorous scientific methods that gave us the theory of gravity, atomic theory, and your computer, produce theories that conflict with your religious beliefs, then suddenly these same methods are no longer valid for attaining truth.
As such, you are straddling the fence. Either science is a valid road to truth, or it isn't. You can't arbitrarily decide when science works and when it doesn't.
Flyer75 writes:
That's why theistic evolutionists really baffle me. I can understand the atheist more then I can the Christian who feels the need to have science prove "God" and creation. If you believe in a God that raised his Son from the dead after being buried for three days (something science cannot do or explain), then why is it so hard to grasp the creation event? The atheist at least says, "there is no God". That makes more sense.
I don't like to describe myself as a "theistic evolutionist". The term implies a belief that evolution requires a "divine tinkerer" to work. And I don't think that's been scientifically evidenced. However, I am a believing theist, and I am an "evolutionist" (I don't like that term either, but it's a far cry better than "darwinist"). So I probably fit your idea of a "theistic evolutionist".
I have never felt the need to "prove" God's existence scientifically. In fact, I think that would undermine faith. You can't have faith in something that's been proven. It's funny though that you accuse theistic evolutionists of this behaviour, as the whole modus operandi of "scientific creationists" (including YECs) is to try to prove God's existence via science. I don't see many theistic evolutionists attempting this feat.
Flyer75 writes:
If you believe in a God that raised his Son from the dead after being buried for three days (something science cannot do or explain), then why is it so hard to grasp the creation event?
Because evidence does not rule out that Jesus was raised from the dead. Neither is there scientific evidence for it, so it's purely a faith position. However, there is plenty of evidence for how the universe and our planet originated, and it conflicts with YEC dogma. Christians are not mandated to accept the dogmatic beliefs of YECs.
Flyer75 writes:
The atheist at least says, "there is no God".
Some atheists say that. Others say: "I see no reason to believe in a God, therefore I do not believe he exists", holding to the null hypothesis until they have evidence. This is a reasonable position to take. Science does not rule out the existence of God, nor does it provide unequivocal proof that He exists. Nor can it. Science is a study of natural phenomena with natural causes.
So why believe in God? Certainly not because His existence has been "proven" through science! In my case it's because I have seen God acting in my life and in the life of other Christians. I have faith in God. I can't
know for certain that my faith is well-placed in the same sense that I can know that 2+2=4 or that E=mc^2. But faith is a personal thing, and I personally believe God reveals himself through people.
In light of all this, I can not accept that an honest and benevolent Creator would create the universe with an appearance of billions of years of existence. Even if star light were created in transit for some odd reason, there would be no need to fill the universe with (apparently) ancient stars, scarred and cratered planets, and black holes. Either the Universe was created by a trickster god, or it's been around for billions of years.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
ABE:
This is going off topic. Perhaps the admins would prefer if we continued this discussion in a separate thread? Or alternatively, if you'd like to respond to anything in my post you can message me instead.
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
