Christianity, Knowledge and Science

First off, this is my first post. I just came across this forum a couple days ago and have been reading quite a bit. I found many areas I wanted to respond to, and just decided this was as good a place as any to start.I would like to say first that for the most part I am very pleased to see "both sides" of this discussion actually talking. Too often we as humans tend to look down upon those who think differently then we do. Yes, that happens here as well, but not as often I would hope. It also happens from both sides, so no one should point fingers too directly.Now, onto the point.I can, and must, agree that religion has at many times in the past hindered progress. Although, I think this can be broken down to blaming the people involved, and not the religion itself. People, ALL people at some point, are afraid of the unknown. Some decide to go on in spite of that fear, others decide to stop. As a Christian, I am often offended by what other 'Christians' say and do. This area would be one of them. I believe science is a wonderful thing. I believe God wants us to search, and study, and find out how He did things. I do not think anything we can or ever will discover will disprove He is there. There will always be room for faith, because we can never know everything. I honestly believe that, as a believer in God, or a god, the only reason you would want science halted is because of a deep down fear that what you believe may not be real. I believe that is what has caused the problems in the past, as well as what is causing some of the problems in the present.I am going to start a new topic, but I would like to make a little point along the lines of that new topic here. Most of us (I will not say all of us, because I know someone would argue with me)...so, Most of us go into a situation with expectations or beliefs. If you believe in evolution, then you look at all the evidence with that as your viewpoint, and you see the evidence as supporting that. If you do not believe in evolution, you look at all the evidence with that as your viewpoint, and you see the evidence supporting your view. This holds true more often then not. It takes a LOT to sway anyone from something they truly believe. And please, do not try to honestly tell me that all evolution scientists are unbiased and look strictly at the evidence to come to their conclusions. No one is completely unbiased. We believe what we believe, whether that is based on science, faith, or a combination of the two. This is why, with all the evidence that is available, there are numerous scientists that are on multiple sides of this argument.So, to Straggler, and anyone else who had the same point: I agree, religion has often gotten in the way of science. As a Christian, I find that very disappointing. Too many people have used religion to further their cause, even when their cause was not the 'religion' they profess to believe in.Edited by bujitsu, : No reason given.

First off, thanks for the welcome. I am glad to be here.I agree with you completely. (I won't say Christian or any other religion specifically, because I believe we all fall into what I am going to say)Too many people who hold religious beliefs are unwilling to look at the facts. I can agree with what many say about that. It does not take true faith to walk across the Golden Gate Bridge, and believe that it will hold me. It would take faith to walk across a bridge over the same area that was obviously weak and might not hold my weight.Now, that being said...I also believe too many people who are not religious place too much belief in what they feel the evidence shows. Let me explain this before you jump all over it. Science has 'proven' many things in the past, only to have those things proven wrong in later years. Evolution (I am using evolution because that is a major part of this whole discussion) is possibly one of those things. Like it or not, it is still a THEORY. It is NOT a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is jumping ahead of themselves or giving too much credence and 'faith' to the evidence. There are those on both sides, or all sides, of this argument that put too much faith in something. There is evidence that some use to show that evolution is a viable possibility. But, there are plenty of scientists, including Non-Christians, that look at the same evidence, and come up with different conclusions. If at some point in the future, someone could, beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove evolution to be a fact, to be the way things have been done...I and most Christians I know would accept that. In truth, I do not think that whether or not evolution is truth is going to change whether or not God is. (But, that is a debate for another time.) I think you are overstating this. It is not faith that is the problem, it is faith without sight. I honestly believe that God is not happy with anyone who claims faith, and yet will not look at the evidence. I have no problem looking at any evidence about evolution, or anything else. I look at it, and study it, and come to a conclusion. You and I (and myriad others) come to different conclusions. It's like the bridge analogy I used earlier. Having faith the bridge will hold me is one thing...walking blindly towards it, and MISSING the bridge, then blaming God because it was not there is another. The bridge was there, you just did not open your eyes to see it.Here is an example I was thinking about, and I hope this comes across properly. Gravity. We know it is there, we feel it. For years, we did not know what it was. Let's just say, we knew something kept us on this planet. We were not thrown out into space. There were many views on this, many 'beliefs'. Now, we can relatively safely say that all of those beliefs were proven wrong, except the one that is true: Gravity keeps us on this planet. Now, is it possible that 300 years from now, science will have made some discovery that shows our view of gravity, although well meaning, was not actually fact. We looked at the facts, put them together and came up with what we believed was truth, only to have that in the future shown to be not true? Of course that is possible. Do I think that will happen, of course not. All I am saying is...any scientist (or anyone else I would hope) looks at all the evidence they have available, and comes to a conclusion based on that evidence. Most of that evidence is not proof, that is why so many scientists disagree. We have faith, on whichever side we are on, that we are reading the evidence correctly.Ringo, like it or not, you have faith in your science. You have faith that the evidence you have seen explains the conclusions you have come to. Some day in the future, maybe our faith in that science will be proven right...or wrong...only time will tell.Edited by bujitsu, : Fixed the code for the qoute box.

Ok, I think some of this honestly comes down to semantics. You say potato, I say potAto.We can continue to argue about this and won’t come to a conclusion.Let me kind of sum up what I am saying.Evolution, as a WHOLE, is still a theory. Micro-evolution (or variation) is fact. Macro-evolution is theory. Evolution in small forms, which many view as adaptation, is a fact. What most Christians, and many scientists, argue with is evolution on a huge scale. As in, evolution of one species from another; dinosaurs becoming birds, and such. Adaptation is proven, and is a fact. Evolution, on a monumental scale, is still a theory. Not many scientists are trying to show that evolution on a minor scale is true. Because the facts are there to show it. Sorry, not how I or many see it. Evolutionists see adaptation (or evolution on a small scale) or even micro-evolution and use that evidence to 'prove' that evolution on a large scale, or macro-evolution, happens. That is NOT a fact. Could it be a fact, yes I will say it COULD be. But, it has not, nor can it at this time, be PROVEN. It is believed by many to be true, because of the evidence they have seen. On the other side, it is still believed by many to be false, also because of the evidence they have seen. Sorry, I STRONGLY disagree.Question: Why do so many scientists, on both sides, honestly view the evidence, and come to many different conclusions?
Answer: Because the true answer to it all is NOT obvious. Many things can be deduced, or hypothesized.All scientists have faith that the observations they are making are true based on the evidence they see. You perform and experiment many times, coming up with the same answer; you have faith that this answer is correct. Is it? Most likely. Is there a possibility that it is wrong, OF COURSE. You can NOT honestly tell me that you KNOW 100% that every answer you (or any scientist) has come up with is 100% correct. That is just arrogance. (And please don't bring up some simple little thing that is obvious. I am talking more about the big things, like evolution.) It may be 100% correct with all the evidence we presently have, but if there is ANY doubt, it is open to discussion. Plenty of scientific discoveries in the past have been shown to be wrong not long after. Including many in recent years.I agree, science has to be objective. But, no one goes into a study of something like evolution without some preconceived notions. At least no these days. You believe evolution completely (or at least I am assuming you do). Because of that, when you look at the evidence, you will obviously lean towards evolution heavily. It would take something HUGE to push you the other way. ANYONE is that way. You read the evidence, with the beliefs you had before hand, and come to a conclusion.I am not in any way trying to prove, or disprove evolution. Or even to sway you in any direction. I am just saying that; Faith comes into play for everyone. Call it what you want to. Deny it if you like. You have faith in evolution, and everything you read or study or find is 'tainted' by that. I do not use the word 'tainted' as a bad thing here. I do not believe in evolution on a huge scale, and everything I study or read or find is 'tainted' by that. It would take something huge in the opposite direction for either of us to change our view. That holds true to most scientists, on either side of the argument. And there are more then two sides to this argument. There are many non-Christian scientists that do not believe in evolution on the large scale, but do not believe in creation either. Why is that? Because they look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion.Edited by bujitsu, : fixed some formatting problems

Chiroptera, you took my statement way farther then it was intended. I agree that there are plenty of delusional people out there, on every side. But, my statement is still correct, just not to the extent you took it. Everyone has a bias. Now, that does not mean that you will take that bias and not apply the evidence. Someone may believe they can not get wet, ever. But, once thrown into the pool, they should change their mind. If they come out, dripping wet, and still deny that they can get wet..then yes, they are delusional.I think we can agree that any scientist, or any person, worth paying attention too, is willing to weigh the evidence honestly. There are plenty of scientists that have weighed the evidence, repeatedly, and still do NOT support Macro-evolution. How can that be? Are they delusional? Of course not. (At least not that I, or we, know of.) They just do not see the evidence pointing to the same conclusions as some others.This is not directed at you, but I do want to add. I, and many others, take serious offense at those who believe in macro-evolution, and accuse us of being deluded or hallucinating because our view differs from theirs. We are all coming to some conclusion based on the evidence we see. Yes, there are those who would deny certain thing to be true, even if they could be proven as a fact. As a Christian, I honestly have no problem in the long run if science can PROVE that macro-evolution of the species occurred. At this time, it CAN NOT, and anyone who says otherwise is looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on their own delusion. There are deluded people on both sides of this argument.

Wow...Just...WOW.I will stop this line of responses. You are WRONG. Period. Micro-evolution is a fact. Macro-evolution is NOT. The very fact that you are even TRYING to say that Macro-evolution has been proven, and that those of us who doubt it are delussional and part of some cult, is astounding. How can you say something that is completely unobservable is proven. You can NOT observe macro-evolution. You have observed micro-evolution, and from that drawn the conclusion that it must continue on and become macro-evolution. The fact that you can not concede this point shows your arrogance in the whole argument. I at least was, and am, willing to admit that there is a possibility of the other view. Although I, and MANY others do not see the evidence as supporting that.As far as 'The Clergy Priject', I will have to read up on it. Although, I must say, anyone that has this to say :"To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." Shows to me that they are also too prouf of their own findings.You, and many like you, jump on those that do not support what you believe in and call us deluded, or some other term. Yes, many in the 'Christian' or religious ranks do the same thing. Either way, I think that is wrong. We should be able to agree to disagree. But no, you say if anyone looks at your findings, and disagrees with your view of them, they are deluded and should shut up. Hmmm, this sounds just like what was said to people in the dark-ages by the church. You are doing the same thing now. I find that rather interesting.

And there in lies the problem, and the reason I am stopping this line of responses.I do not have a list as of yet, as I did not think I would need to get one put together. But, even if the list is 10 people. If these 10 are honest scientists, who have looked at the evidence, and do not believe it shows the proof that others believe...How does that make them wrong?As you said: Galileo, and Brahe/Kelpar, were a small minority at the time. yet, in the end, they were proved to be correct. There are scientists, like it or not, that have honestly looked at the evidence and disagree with the majority on this issue. In the long run, most likely, someone will be proven correct. But, those scientists who disagree with the majority are not morons, or delusional, they just see the evidence pointing in a different direction.Truth is, I can argue til I am blue in the face. I can link to those who say what I believe. Nothing will help. You, and everyone who has responded to my posts, have already come to your conclusions. You believe I have been misled, or don't know enough, or am delusional.And yes, I have made up my mind, as have you. I believe I am willing to change my view if shown evidence to the contrary. Are you? I have yet to see that evidence that can change my mind. Do I believe there is scientific evidence to prove evolution, yes, but only on a micro scale. Nothing I have seen proves it on a macro scale. It can be used to deduce macro evolution, if read in that direction, but it can not prove it. And many read it in a different direction. Oh sorry, I guess only 6 or 8 of us do.Like it or not, most evolutionists are biased. They are just as biased about their views as creationists, or any others, are biased about theirs. You believe we are blinded. We believe you are blinded. Maybe one day those blinders can be pulled off of whomever they are on. Maybe one day we will have the proof that we were both blinded. This is not that day.

Considering that biblically this is one of the worst sins a person can commit, the fact that you just accused me of Blaspheming the Holy-Spirit really makes me question where you are honestly coming from.You are just as bad as those who led the inquisition. "I am right, you are wrong, and if you disagree you are are against God!"Truly pathetic. Edited by bujitsu, : Added quote. Did not want any misunderstanding.

No Ringo, you told me that it was false. That does not mean you are correct.Now, let me write this slowly so everyone can understand. When I make a statement like; "most evolutionsists are biased", it means a portion of them, not ALL. Are there those on either side that might truly be unbiased, yes. But, we are human, few of us are completely, 100% unbiased. If you honestly think all are, you are more deluded then most. Most people, scientist, evolutionist, christian, or anyone else, goes into a situation with their own beliefs or views, and weighs the evidence, WITH those views somewhere in their mind. Now, I can agree that 'some' of those can look at the evidence, and see that it disagrees with their view, and come to a new conclusion. Maybe a lot of them, actually, but not all.My point was, a large number of scientists that support macro-evolution, do so because they studied the evidence (already having the belief in evolution) and they believed that the evidence supported their view. VERY FEW people are honestly able to completely throw out all of thier beliefs and views on a given subject, especially while studying that subject.I was in no way trying to imply that every evolutionist looks at the evidence, and KNOWS the evidence disproves evolution, and then supports evolution anyway. I was just saying that as a scientist, you can take the evidence, and because of your personal views, believe it supports your views.A group of scientists can look at the evidence, objectively, and come to different conclusions. It happens quite often. I would hope I would not have to go into history to show this to be true.

And yet again, you stoop lower then I thought was possible. How dare you. Because I see things differently then you. Because I, and many others believe the evidence points in a different direction. I am NOT worshiping God. That is total hypocrisy.Many years ago people were put to death by the church because they believed in something that was not held to be true my science and modern belief. They believed that earth was NOT the center of the universe. In time, they were proven correct. Yet, they still died.You might not be wanting me put to deaht, but you are doing the modern equivilant. You are preaching that we should not be allowed to tell what we believe. There are plenty that believe the evidence does NOT prove macro-evolution. Believe the media hype all you want.There are scientists that believe the evidence does show that creationis, the flood, and a young earth are not only possible, but happened. The fact that you have sided with society, because its the easy thing to do, is pathetic. If you have researched the evidence, and honestly come to your belief because of that, congrats. You are entitled to that. But, when you start claiming that those of us who believe the evidence points elsewhere are not even true believers in God...you are coming across as bad a the Pharisees. You demean God by the mere mention of His name in that context. You claim Christian love, and then accuse me of not even worshipping God? That is not only legalistic in nature, it is on the verge of hypocrytical.You claim we do not look at the record God left us because we do not support macro-evolution. Well, the same can be, and has been, claimed about you and your ilk.I want to know why you started getting so venomous, when I was trying to be open to discussion?And don't claim you did not. Accusing me of blasphemy of the Holy-Spirit is about as venomous as a person can get. I admit, I am honestly trying to not come back in kind.On another note, just because, as you said, 10,000 clergy support something...does not make it right.

Are you serious?Heck, just look at health sciences in the past decade. Oat bran was at one time thought to be one of the best things you could eat. Now, ehh, it's not that special. Eggs were thought to be almost a death sentence to some people because of the cholesterol. Again, this was found to not be true.Cigarettes were originally good for you. Duh, not so much now.And yes, those were all done with science. And no, I am not going to go find the studies just to show you what you and I and most people already know from history.Science and history are ripe with situations where people read the evidence, came to a conclusion, and were proven WRONG in time. It happens. I am not going to go through history just to prove to you what you already know is true.The fact that so many evolutionists get venomous, and accuse those who disagree with them of being idiots, or delusional, or any other derogatory word you can think of, makes one wonder about what they are really all about.And no, I am NOT missing your point. I agree, that in a large group, biases are usually rooted out. Except when everyone in that group has the same bias. Which can, for arguments sake, be said about both the creationist, and the evolutionist, camps. There have been scientists that have left both sides for the other.

And this just shows the errogance of those of your ilk. That us PURELY opinion. NOT fact. It is your opinion that I demean God. And, because it is your opinion, you profess it to be fact. This has, and always will be the problem with arrogance. The first sentence, and the last sentence I can agree with. The middle one is, yet again, arrogance unbound. These things are simply false in YOUR view of the evidence. But, because we do not see it the same as you do, we are not in touch with reality? That is so arrogant, it's actually funny. And again...arrogance. Because they do not believe the evidence as you do, they must either lie, be ignorant, or delusional. How truly pathetic. Again, how is this a FACT? You quoted my statement about you saying I was Blaspheming the Holy-Spirit. This was, nor is, NOT a fact. It is YOUR opinion. Yet, because it is your opinion, you arrogantly claim it to be fact. This is the whole problem I and many have with the whole evolutionist movement. One more time..arrogance. If we don't support your view, we are ignorant. If we don't agree with you, we are ignorant. Sad.I am not saying you have to change you views on evolution, I truly don't care what those are. The fact that you could accuse me of what you did without actually discussing with me enough to know me, shows me you are farther from God then you could imagine. You are so focused on science, that you have lost faith, or at least that is how you are coming across. You accuse a fellow christian of blaspheming God, which in itself could be accused of doing the same thing. Notice that in this whole argument, I never accused you of not truly following God. That is because I am not so arrogant as to assume I know everything. Please, don't attack my relationship with God without first discussing it with me. That is in no way Christ-like.

I agree.I would start a new thread...just not sure what the new topic should be titled.Any suggestions?

Thanks AdminPhat.I will work on something to post about myself as an introduction.I had thought when I first started reading through the forums that, once I started posting, I would of course have people that disagreed with me. I have NO problem with that. First off, that is one of the wonderful freedoms of this country. Second, as a Christian I believe that it is a God given right of free-will to believe what you want, and voice that belief. Of course, just because someone believes with all their heart and mind that something is true...does not make it so. I can believe I am a hard-boiled egg...that does not make it so.What honestly caught me off guard was someone coming along, claiming to share my beliefs in Christ, and then directly attacking those beliefs without any more backup then one or two statements from me. I found it very mean spirited and not at all Christ-like.For the rest of you, feel free to share your opinions, I have no problem with it. Obviously, there are many varied views, on many different subjects, that are shared here.I will add this, and I think this should be addressed to those on every side of this argument. Just because someone does not agree with your point of view, does NOT mean they are delusional, misinformed, lieing, or just not seeing the obvious. You may not like it, I may not like it. But, the fact of the matter is, many people look at evidence, and come to different conclusions. This happens in every area of life. Look at the courts, how often are jurys split. They all saw the same evidence, and yet came to different conclusions. I know some will say; "But that is not science. Science is black and white." Grow up, no it isn't. Are there things in science that are black and white, yes. But it is not all that simple. Many things can be seen, or even infered from the evidence. (And please don't start with trying to explain to me how science works. Don't belittle me that way.)Sorry, guess that was a little longer then I planned. I do that at times. As I said, I am working on an introduction, and I hope to post it soon.Until then,Thanks,
JasonP.S. I will do a search for this, but...any suggestions on where to post an introduction?Edited by bujitsu, : Added P.S.

This may very well be the last time I reply to you Jar. Not because I am afraid of debate. But, because you are way too antagonistic. I rarely doubt someone who claims to be a Christian. This is one of those rare cases. You seem more like someone posing as a Christian, just to attack those who actually are. But, that debate is for another time, and another forum.As for the rest of your 'claims'...completely laughable.The FACTS, as you say it, do not upset me. The FACTS are looked at by many, and are seen to support more then one conclusion. The very FACT that you deny this shows that you are the deluded one.I love how those of your ilk claim that ALL the evidence proves your point. No, it does not. There is a lot of evidence that you can use to show your points could be the truth. But, there are plenty of scientists that have looked at the evidence and believe it shows other truths. Like it or not NOT ALL SCIENTISTS agree with you.You can claim they are all lieing, which is totally absurd. You can claim they are all deluded, which is again totally absurd.The fact that you claim this: is quite honestly...pathetic. It is a true showing of how arrogant and deluded you truly are. "Anyone who disagrees with me can not honestly believe what they are saying, so they must be lying." That is quite possibly the most arrogant attitude I have ever seen.They are NOT lying. They HAVE looked at your so-called evidence, and they DISAGREE with you and your side of the argument. Not EVERYONE, scientist or otherwise supports your cause. GROW up and realize that.I never said that everyone agreed with me. I know plenty don't, and they are entitled to their opinion. Do I think they are deluded, not all of them. I say that because I am sure there are those that are deluded on every side of any argument. Do I think those that support the 'other' side are all lying, of course not. I believe there are those on both sides that are lying, and that is a sad truth. I believe that the majority on both sides have done what they believe is honest Due-diligence, and have come to what they 'believe' is the correct answer.Stop accusing those who disagree with you of obviously lying. It's sad, not true and a pathetic attempt at putting people down. Those who use that approach are usually those that are not truly strong in their convictions, and must use attacks to make others feel small. It's the typical bully mentality, and you use it well.One more point: Do I believe that God is powerful enough to do something that science, in all it's wisdom and knowledge, says can NOT be done. YES, beyond a shadow of a doubt. I know God could make things happen that are completely contradictory to the laws of physics and anything else that we presently think we understand. That being said, I do not believe this is a case where that has happened. So, making any of your statements is not even an option. Because I and many others do not see the evidence as saying the same as you do. No, that is not a lie, it is the truth. Deal with it.

And again Ringo, I disagree. You and your ilk love to say stuff along the lines of "If you see the evidence differently, you are lying or ignoring the truth." No they aren't. And you claiming that they are is not going to change that fact. Any more then me claiming that they are honestly looking at the evidence and coming to different conclusions is going to convince you otherwise.I know you are probably going to disagree with the following statement, but that is fine, I will make it anyway. After all, you are entitled to be wrong. In science, scientists OFTEN disagree with findings. Scientists often read the evidence differently. It happens all the time. Please do not try to tell me that in science, the evidence always shows one conlusion. That is utter crap. (I am not saying that there are not cases where that happens, but it is not always the case.)That being the case, the FACT is, that there are scientist that have looked at the data, and have come to different conclusions. You can say they are not honest, you can say they are deluded, you can say that they are wrong. Truth is, we can say the same about you and the scientists you support. It's all opinion.Stop trying to make it sound like it's a simple argument. It's not like you have a piece of paper that says '1+1=2'. The problem is complex. The evidence is vast. And like it or not, admit it or not, the evidence can, and has, been viewed and seen differenly.