Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[nPeace]

I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science. They get along quite well.
@Subduction Zone, I think you and others disagree. So I welcome your objections. Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science. They get along quite well.
@Subduction Zone, I think you and others disagree. So I welcome your objections. Thank you.

Do you deny evolution? Like it or not that is "good science". Perhaps you do not understand what is and what is not good science.

Good science simply follows the scientific method. Do you agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also Genesis says that there was a massive worldwide flood. That flood would have left endless scientific evidence and get there is none to be found. That clearly is not "good science" on the part of Genesis.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science. They get along quite well.
@Subduction Zone, I think you and others disagree. So I welcome your objections. Thank you.

Is it peer reviewed?

 

[shunyadragon]

I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science. They get along quite well.
@Subduction Zone, I think you and others disagree. So I welcome your objections. Thank you.

I believe Genesis is Genesis and science is science. Claiming too close a relationship creates problems. I believe most Christians the have a strong belief the historicity and accuracy of Genesis reject of only conditionally partially accept Genesis. It is pretty much factual that the Church Fathers and/or authors of the New Testament believed in a literal Genesis, Adam and Eve existence and role in original sin, and Noah Flood as described. Belief in Genesis of course varies to a degree, but dependence on Genesis even to a degree of historicity is in conflict with science. It is an unfortunate fact that 30-40% of Christians in the USA believe in a literal Genesis and rejects science to one degree or another.

I believe keep Genesis separate from science is an important issue for the advancement of the acceptance of science in western culture.

@nPeace do you accept the contemporary science as is, or conditionally accept science constrained by the belief and historicity of Genesis?

 

[nPeace]

Do you deny evolution? Like it or not that is "good science". Perhaps you do not understand what is and what is not good science.

Good science simply follows the scientific method. Do you agree?

No. Using the scientific method is one thing, but there is a lot more to it than just that.
Good science vs. bad science - Macleans.ca
What is Good Science?
However, the scientific method is a must, of course.

Why do you ask about evolution? Is that one of the things you say disagree with the Genesis account? Then please elaborate.

 

[nPeace]

Is it peer reviewed?

Notice. I never said Genesis is a science journal. Why do you ask?
Do you have any disagreements, that Genesis conflicts with scientific discoveries?
Please, "you have the floor".

 

[nPeace]

Also Genesis says that there was a massive worldwide flood. That flood would have left endless scientific evidence and get there is none to be found. That clearly is not "good science" on the part of Genesis.

Please state how science conflicts with the Genesis account. Saying you don't find evidence for this or that is not a conflict.
I don't find evidence that there isn't a city in the universe doesn't mean science discovered there is no city in the universe.

 

[Augustus]

Good science simply follows the scientific method. Do you agree?

Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg:

Not only does the fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally round and defend. I remember a conversation I had years ago with a high school teacher, who explained proudly that in her school teachers were trying to get away from teaching just scientific facts, and wanted instead to give their students an idea of what the scientific method was. I replied that I had no idea what the scientific method was, and I thought she ought to teach her students scientific facts. She thought I was just being surly. But it’s true; most scientists have very little idea of what the scientific method is, just as most bicyclists have very little idea of how bicycles stay erect. In both cases, if they think about it too much, they’re likely to fall off.

 

[nPeace]

I believe Genesis is Genesis and science is science. Claiming too close a relationship creates problems. I believe most Christians the have a strong belief the historicity and accuracy of Genesis reject of only conditionally partially accept Genesis. It is pretty much factual that the Church Fathers and/or authors of the New Testament believed in a literal Genesis, Adam and Eve existence and role in original sin, and Noah Flood as described. Belief in Genesis of course varies to a degree, but dependence on Genesis even to a degree of historicity is in conflict with science. It is an unfortunate fact that 30-40% of Christians in the USA believe in a literal Genesis and rejects science to one degree or another.

I believe keep Genesis separate from science is an important issue for the advancement of the acceptance of science in western culture.

@nPeace do you accept the contemporary science as is, or conditionally accept science constrained by the belief and historicity of Genesis?

Yes, I agree the Genesis account is history, not science. I didn't say otherwise.
I'm not sure I understand your last question. I could strain by brain to understand it, but I am not in that frame of mind right now, So would you mind simplifying the question please?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Using the scientific method is one thing, but there is a lot more to it than just that.
Good science vs. bad science - Macleans.ca
What is Good Science?
However, the scientific method is a must, of course.

Why do you ask about evolution? Is that one of the things you say disagree with the Genesis account? Then please elaborate.

I can assure you that by the standards in the articles you linked it is "good science" . Creationism on the other hand is not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I agree the Genesis account is history, not science. I didn't say otherwise.
I'm not sure I understand your last question. I could strain by brain to understand it, but I am not in that frame of mind right now, So would you mind simplifying the question please?

it is not even history since major events in it never happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please state how science conflicts with the Genesis account. Saying you don't find evidence for this or that is not a conflict.
I don't find evidence that there isn't a city in the universe doesn't mean science discovered there is no city in the universe.

You do not seem to understand. The flood myth tells us that it it were true we would see endless evidence of it. Instead we only see evidence to the contrary.

Here is an example. A friend calls you in a panic and says that a here of buffalo just stampeded through his or her house. You rush over and the house is immaculate. Did your friend lie?

 

[nPeace]

@Subduction Zone did you notice the title of the thread, and the OP?
So you have no objections to either, then?
The question is not about whether Genesis is history or not.
I probably misunderstood what you were complaining about in other threads.
So it had nothing to do with science then.

 

[nPeace]

You do not seem to understand. The flood myth tells us that it it were true we would see endless evidence of it. Instead we only see evidence to the contrary.

Here is an example. A friend calls you in a panic and says that a here of buffalo just stampeded through his or her house. You rush over and the house is immaculate. Did your friend lie?

I am asking you about science SZ, not about your personal hangups with the flood account.

 

[Left Coast]

No. Using the scientific method is one thing, but there is a lot more to it than just that.
Good science vs. bad science - Macleans.ca
What is Good Science?
However, the scientific method is a must, of course.

Why do you ask about evolution? Is that one of the things you say disagree with the Genesis account? Then please elaborate.

We're asking about evolution because a literal reading of Genesis would contradict it. If you don't interpret Genesis literally, the conversation in this thread is going to go quite differently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone did you notice the title of the thread, and the OP?
So you have no objections to either, then?
The question is not about whether Genesis is history or not.
I probably misunderstood what you were complaining about in other threads.
So it had nothing to do with science then.

You do not seem to understand that anything close to a literal interpretation of Genesis makes it a foe of science. And there is no way that it can be a friend. That would take extreme cherry picking, an incorrect tactic that should be avoided.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am asking you about science SZ, not about your personal hangups with the flood account.

That is just one example of how Genesis is wrong.

 

[nPeace]

We're asking about evolution because a literal reading of Genesis would contradict it. If you don't interpret Genesis literally, the conversation in this thread is going to go quite differently.

For example.
Clearly you must define evolution, because there are various understandings of what evolution is, and those who understand Genesis in part to be literal, do not have a problem with evolution... of course depending on how you are using it.
So please explain so that we can all understand each other.

 

[nPeace]

You do not seem to understand that anything close to a literal interpretation of Genesis makes it a foe of science. And there is no way that it can be a friend. That would take extreme cherry picking, an incorrect tactic that should be avoided.

Explain please.