Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
Junior Member (Idle past 5745 days)
Posts: 8
From: Tampa Bay, US
Joined: 10-12-2008

Message 158 of 176 (485882)
10-12-2008 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Coyote
10-12-2008 2:13 AM

Re: Evidence
There is no evidence that an intelligent designer created the physical universe that will satisfy science. Science, by default, eliminates from its field of consideration all phenomena that cannot be subject to observation, measurement, verifiability, falsifiability, and/or rationality. The Genesis creation account cannot be subjected to any of these (unless scientists and creationists are willing to consider it rationally).
The Bible is not as much a science text as it is a book of art. By “art” I mean the Bible is a work of analogy, metaphor, simile, allegory, parable, illustration, symbolism, etc. I think anyone who insists on a purely literal interpretation of a Biblical passage, such as the creation account, has missed the major point of it.
The fact is, every account recorded in the Scriptures has multiple levels of meaning in some combination of the literal, figurative, physical, spiritual, physiological, and psychological”with the spiritual facet being by far the most critical to an understanding of God’s purpose.
The Bible (the common source of revealed knowledge referenced in these forums) reveals God, and the Bible tells us that nature reveals God. Also, the Bible tells us that God cannot lie. A lie is a contradiction; it is a contradiction to truth. Since the Author of the Bible and the Creator of nature are one in the same, it’s impossible that the things revealed in the Bible should contradict the things revealed by nature.
If we insist on a religious belief that contradicts nature, or if we insist on a scientific theory that contradicts the Bible, we insist on a version of “truth” that is found neither in the Bible nor in nature. Science and religion contradict each other. Nature and the Bible do not. If we really want the truth, we need to find an interpretation of the Bible and a theory about nature that agree, even if it means letting go of some cherished or theorized beliefs.
(For example, I have let go of the notion that Eve was literally created from Adam’s rib. Gen 2:21 relates that God opened Adam’s flesh, removed the rib, then closed up the flesh afterward. This does not describe the act of an Almighty God for whom there are no physical limitations. This is clearly an allegorical description of a different meaning. I have also let go of the notion of a 6 24-hour day Creation period.)
But I suspect agreement between science and religion will be never happen. Scientists make little room for God because He doesn’t always practice what they consider to be logic or science, and religionists make little room for theories that suggest God is not the person they have always believed Him to be.
If we find ourselves in a debate over evidence and faith, it is not a debate between nature and the Bible, because these are always in agreement. At least one side of the debate is over what we perceive to be evidence, or over what we are personally willing to accept.
This is the opinion of a newbie to these forums. I apologize if I overstepped any “tribal boundaries.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Coyote, posted 10-12-2008 2:13 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2008 6:21 PM JungEinstein has replied

Junior Member (Idle past 5745 days)
Posts: 8
From: Tampa Bay, US
Joined: 10-12-2008

Message 160 of 176 (485961)
10-13-2008 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by RAZD
10-12-2008 6:21 PM

Re: Evidence
Thanks for the tips, RAZD.
RAZD writes:
So it’s a matter of interpretation.
Yes. The Bible itself says interpretation is required. (Dan 2:45; Luke 24:27). Clues to an accurate interpretation are found in nature and within the Bible itself. Wherever clues to a specific point are found in both, the two must agree.
Reality does not play favorites for science or religion.
This was the point I hoped to make. Science and religion are human enterprises and are subject to limited human perception. It is here that we find contradictions, not between those which are the subjects of science and religion”nature and the Bible (the common source of revealed knowledge referenced in these forums), because nature and the Bible arise from one undifferentiated Source beyond human perception. Yet, as you say about natural history,
it is our understanding that may be incomplete.
JungEinstein writes:
Science and religion contradict each other.
This wasn’t intended as a general statement, but one with the qualification I hoped would be evident by its position before the statement, “Nature and the Bible do not.” I’ll try to be more precise in the future.
cherished or theorized beliefs
I was refering to concepts we hold to be true (“beliefs”), whether we hold them because they are the product of scientific research (“theorized”) or because they “bring us closer” to God (“cherished”). I didn’t allude to scientific fact as part of my meaning because I don’t wish that anyone should let go of facts.
But I suspect agreement between science and religion will be never happen.
Again, this was not intended as a general statement. I hoped my meaning would be evident from the context.
I’ll confess, I’m a creative writer first (which, of course, is debatable), and then a critical thinker. This means I have a bad habit of leaving my meaning open to interpretation, even when I have a specific point.
RAZD writes:
And what you are willing to test against reality, what you are willing to see falsified.
The question left then is how do you test for the truth of the truth? Do you use the scientific method? What do you do outside the realm of science? Is there another method?

The theory is then tested to see if it stands up, and it is quickly discarded if invalidated by new evidence discovered either through the outcome of the predictions of found through other means.
The other method I’m suggesting is a validation test of scientific theory against the Bible, and religious belief against nature, being careful not to attempt validation of scientific theory against religious belief. You said
In science these theories are always held as tentative explanations, works in progress, always challenged by reality.
In fact, religious beliefs were also intended to be tested continually. (Acts 17:11; 2 Cor 13:5).
Interpretations of the Bible can be revised, just as scientific theories can be revised. I don’t believe it’s a far stretch to suggest that religious belief is the side that needs to do the most revision, because, as we’ve said, it’s open to much interpretation. The point is to find agreement, not argument. Is there room on these forums for agreement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2008 6:21 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024