Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Other than God vs Science?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Creationism Vs Evolultion be couched in terms
- Thread starter Scuba Pete
- Start date
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Well, I not only accept the possibility, but profess the probability. Why would this be a deal breaker?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Well now THERE'S a huge leap. From extra-terrestrials to being made by them.
Are you contending that the appearance of such will prove that they made us?
Are you contending that the appearance of such will prove that they made us?
linwood
Well-Known Member
Not at all I`m just slipping the only other possibilty I can think of in there.NetDoc said:
Extraterrestrial doesn`t necessarily mean walking talking space vessel flying aliens either.
Certain amino acids necessary to form life have been found in meteorites from space, along those lines.
If something like that happened it would still need to be decided whether thats by design are accidental after all.
Although it would give those who scoff at the idea of humans evolving from an apelike ancestor something to think about if it`s discovered we really evolved from some bacteria those space travelling vessels left behind when they stopped here to dump their head.
Please clarify the question.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Good point Deut!
Evolution vs Creationism ALWAYS seems to be reduced to Science vs God.
Can we redefine the debate differently?
Evolution vs Creationism ALWAYS seems to be reduced to Science vs God.
Can we redefine the debate differently?
Godless Dave
Member
Not only can they, but in order to discuss them honestly they have to. Evolution is not opposed to religion and neither is science.NetDoc said:
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Once you incorporate "religion" into a science discussion, you have reduced the discussion to a level of emotions and feelings.
john313
warrior-poet
If we did "evolve" from apes like some say, it seems odd that we have evolved into needing clothes and sunscreen to protect ourselves from the sun. Humans are the only creatures that need to cover themselves. This would seem more like a deevolution. People do have a hard time believing that God always existed, but if God did not always exist, then what did? Since there is something here, something had to always exist. If a giant rock exploded and it formed the universe in perfect harmony, then where did the rock come from?
Concerning "aliens", Genesis says that the Elohim (angels/gods) made us in their image. It is translated in the king James version "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...(Genesis 1:26) Either this is a mistranslation from the Hebrew "Elohim", or the God of the English version of the Bible has a personality disorder. There are many such mistranslations in the bible.
Concerning "aliens", Genesis says that the Elohim (angels/gods) made us in their image. It is translated in the king James version "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...(Genesis 1:26) Either this is a mistranslation from the Hebrew "Elohim", or the God of the English version of the Bible has a personality disorder. There are many such mistranslations in the bible.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Who knows... maybe EVERYTHING evolved except man? Maybe just a couple of things. Maybe we did evolve from apes. Scriptures do not not seem to confirm or deny the process.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Who said that?john313 said:
They are wrong and it is not what evolution tells us.
Matter, energy, space, time, the universe in one form or another.
Yes, see above.
Who said this?
This is not what the Big Bang theory states.
What the Big Bang theory states is even wierder.
Where might I find this translation online?
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
No, because Creationism is not a true scientific theory. Creationism is a religious theory, and cannot be argued without the use of some spiritual text or diety.
Kind of like how elephants cover their backs with mud and dust to protect themselves from the sun? Or how snails find shells to "wear like clothing" in order to protect themselves? For an animal to use the materials in their enviornment to their advantage is no new and extraordinary technology. It would be stranger if animals kept themselves completely separate from their surroundings by not using them.john said:
The same place god came from, I'm sure.
Godless Dave
Member
Humans who live near the equator don't really need to wear clothes. It's only when we ventured outside our original habitat that we needed to protect ourselves from sunlight and cold temperatures.
<Can we redefine the debate differently?>
Not only can we, but, we must, for the good of religion. The Bible was authored
by theologians not scientists. The Bible makes no attempt to define the how of creation, only the why. Therefore, the most science can accomplish is to illuminate
God's act of creation.
The following excerpt is from Kenneth Miller's book: 'Finding Darwin's God'
By pointing to the process of making a flower as proof of the reality of God, Father Murphy was embracing the idea that God finds it necessary to cripple nature. In his view, the blooming of a daffodil requires not a self-sufficient material universe, but direct intervention by God. We can find God, therefore, in the things around us that lack material, scientific explanations. In nature, elusive and unexplored, we will find the Creator at work.
The creationist opponents of evolution make similar arguments. They claim that the existence of life, the appearance of new species, and, most especially, the origins of mankind have not and cannot be explained by evolution or any other natural process. By denying the self-sufficiency of nature, they look for God (or at least a "designer") in the deficiencies of science. The trouble is that science, given enough time, generally explains even the most baffling things. As a matter of strategy, creationists would be well-advised to avoid telling scientists what they will never be able to figure out. History is against them. In a general way, we really do understand how nature works.
There is, however, a deeper problem caused by the opponents of evolution, a problem for religion. Like our priest, they have based their search for God on the premise that nature is not self-sufficient. By such logic, only God can make a species, just as Father Murphy believed only God could make a flower. Both assertions support the existence of God only so long as these assertions are true, but serious problems for religion emerge when they are shown to be false.
Putting it bluntly, the creationists have sought God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet understand becomes their best - indeed their only - evidence for the divine. As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge (which might at any time disprove belief), but it suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. I suggest that, if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere else - in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.
Each of the great Western monotheistic traditions sees God as truth, love, and knowledge. This should mean that each and every increase in our understanding of the natural world is a step toward God and not, as many people assume, a step away. If faith and reason are both gifts from God, then they should play complementary, not conflicting, roles in our struggle to understand the world around us. As a scientist and as a Christian, that is exactly what I believe. True knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason.
What science cannot do is assign either meaning or purpose to the world it explores. This leads some to conclude that the world as seen by science is devoid of meaning and absent of purpose. It is not. What it does mean, I would suggest, is that our human tendency to assign meaning and value must transcend science and, ultimately, must come from outside it. The science that results can thus be enriched and informed from its contact with the values and principles of faith. The God of Abraham does not tell us which proteins control the cell cycle. But he does give us a reason to care, a reason to cherish that understanding, and above all, a reason to prefer the light of knowledge to the darkness of ignorance.
Not only can we, but, we must, for the good of religion. The Bible was authored
by theologians not scientists. The Bible makes no attempt to define the how of creation, only the why. Therefore, the most science can accomplish is to illuminate
God's act of creation.
The following excerpt is from Kenneth Miller's book: 'Finding Darwin's God'
By pointing to the process of making a flower as proof of the reality of God, Father Murphy was embracing the idea that God finds it necessary to cripple nature. In his view, the blooming of a daffodil requires not a self-sufficient material universe, but direct intervention by God. We can find God, therefore, in the things around us that lack material, scientific explanations. In nature, elusive and unexplored, we will find the Creator at work.
The creationist opponents of evolution make similar arguments. They claim that the existence of life, the appearance of new species, and, most especially, the origins of mankind have not and cannot be explained by evolution or any other natural process. By denying the self-sufficiency of nature, they look for God (or at least a "designer") in the deficiencies of science. The trouble is that science, given enough time, generally explains even the most baffling things. As a matter of strategy, creationists would be well-advised to avoid telling scientists what they will never be able to figure out. History is against them. In a general way, we really do understand how nature works.
There is, however, a deeper problem caused by the opponents of evolution, a problem for religion. Like our priest, they have based their search for God on the premise that nature is not self-sufficient. By such logic, only God can make a species, just as Father Murphy believed only God could make a flower. Both assertions support the existence of God only so long as these assertions are true, but serious problems for religion emerge when they are shown to be false.
Putting it bluntly, the creationists have sought God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet understand becomes their best - indeed their only - evidence for the divine. As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge (which might at any time disprove belief), but it suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. I suggest that, if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere else - in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.
Each of the great Western monotheistic traditions sees God as truth, love, and knowledge. This should mean that each and every increase in our understanding of the natural world is a step toward God and not, as many people assume, a step away. If faith and reason are both gifts from God, then they should play complementary, not conflicting, roles in our struggle to understand the world around us. As a scientist and as a Christian, that is exactly what I believe. True knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason.
What science cannot do is assign either meaning or purpose to the world it explores. This leads some to conclude that the world as seen by science is devoid of meaning and absent of purpose. It is not. What it does mean, I would suggest, is that our human tendency to assign meaning and value must transcend science and, ultimately, must come from outside it. The science that results can thus be enriched and informed from its contact with the values and principles of faith. The God of Abraham does not tell us which proteins control the cell cycle. But he does give us a reason to care, a reason to cherish that understanding, and above all, a reason to prefer the light of knowledge to the darkness of ignorance.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
I guess I'm gonna have to find this book!
<Once you incorporate "religion" into a science discussion, you have reduced the discussion to a level of emotions and feelings.>
Charles Townes, co-inventor of the laser and a Nobel Prize winner in physics,
was named March 9th as the recipient of a religion award billed as the world's richest
annual prize. Townes, 89, a professor at the University of California, Berkley, won the Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities.
"Many people don't realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith, but nothing is absolutely proved.' He has compared his flash 1951 discovery of maser principles, while sitting on a park bench in Washington, D.C., with the revelations depicted in the Bible. He said that, with findings of modern physics, it "seems extremely unlikely" that the existence of life and humanity are "just accidental."
Science and religion are not enemies, God is the author of both.
Charles Townes, co-inventor of the laser and a Nobel Prize winner in physics,
was named March 9th as the recipient of a religion award billed as the world's richest
annual prize. Townes, 89, a professor at the University of California, Berkley, won the Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities.
"Many people don't realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith, but nothing is absolutely proved.' He has compared his flash 1951 discovery of maser principles, while sitting on a park bench in Washington, D.C., with the revelations depicted in the Bible. He said that, with findings of modern physics, it "seems extremely unlikely" that the existence of life and humanity are "just accidental."
Science and religion are not enemies, God is the author of both.