I disagree with this. One doesn't have to abandon scientific research in order to believe in a Creator God.
A lot of the time it doesn't prevent scientists from searching things though, and they still come out with useful results.
-
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!
The assumption of evolution can cause problems
- Thread starter Man of Faith
- Start date
I disagree with this. One doesn't have to abandon scientific research in order to believe in a Creator God.
A lot of the time it doesn't prevent scientists from searching things though, and they still come out with useful results.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Your quoting this post suggests that you conflate the term "Christian" with "believer in creation (as opposed to evolution)". They are not synonymous.
Let me remind you:
(My emphasis.) No-one I know claims that; but being a scientist and a believer in the literal truth of creation as described in Genesis 1 (and thus in the falsity of evolution) would be a different matter.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
but many do abandon proper scientific research because of creation.
to believe this at one point you have to mentally input a deity into nature. At that point right there you have abandoned not only science but reality, because at that point only imagination ties it to the sources of all creation myths. The only reason a deity has been pushed back to the big bang is because that is the largest hole in out knowledge at this point. the fact the deity got pushed back a inch goes directly against its existance.
Draka
Wonder Woman
This would be contingent on what field of science they were researching really. Science has the requirement to go into something without claiming to first have the answer. Instead, you have a hypothesis, test, gather evidence, see if it matches up with your hypothesis, readjust hypothesis, test, gather, compare...lather, rinse, repeat as necessary until done. If one goes into a field of science such as geology or biology, with the presupposition that the evidence will support your religious beliefs, then your "research" will be biased and not worth anything. Being a Creationist may not affect someone's ability to research the conductance of sound or radio waves or so on, but it surely does affect someone's ability to research plate tectonics and geology. It really would depend on the field in question.
As for if everyone were to just assume Creation then we wouldn't have the drive, nor ability, to seek the truth. The truth brings about knowledge. The knowledge brings about cures and other great discoveries and with that, the desire for more information...thus...the strive for more learning.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I think it also depends on the nature of that "belief" in a creator god.... if it's a belief based in scriptural literalism then you aren't going to get much done with science.
If it's a more open belief that can accommodate the sort of probing and questioning that science requires then you can get quite a lot of good science done.
wa:do
Draka
Wonder Woman
Yes, there is a difference in someone who maintains literal "creation" as told in scripture, and one who believes that the creation stories are metaphor or allegory and that "creation" itself could have been a gradual process done in different ways. For them, perhaps studying evolution and geology would be like finding out how "god" wanted it to play out. Assuming a literal "creation" though is a huge roadblock for many fields of science.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Adhering to tightly to anything is a huge roadblock for science. 
wa:do
wa:do
And yet most scientists assume Evolution in the study of biology, paleontology, geology, and so on. Any teacher brave (or foolish) enough to raise doubts about the theory of evolution will almost certainly find themselves facing the ire of the ToE faithful. Dissent is crushed, wherever possible, and wagons are circled.
Science textbooks from grade school on present evolution as a fact. Biochemistry professor Michael Behe states: "Many students learn from their textbooks how to view the world through an evolutionary lens. However, they do not learn how Darwinian evolution might have produced any of the remarkably intricate biochemical systems that those text describes...To understand both the success of Darwinism as orthodoxy and its failure as science at the molecular level, we have to examine the textbooks that are used to teach aspiring scientists."
Trying to refute evolution without the faintest understanding of evolution is like
I doubt her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
And yet you have not been able to present even one verifiable case of this happening....
Yes, that is the purpose of text books, to present facts...
So, is this an appeal to popularity or an appeal to authority?
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Message to rusra02: Dr. Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is a devout Roman Catholic, and accepts theistic evolution. In your opinion, can professing Christians who accept theistic evolution go to heaven?
Do you believe that it is reasonable for a person who knows very little about science to become an inerrantist?
Why do you suppose that the majority of Christian experts accept theistic evolution instead of creationism, do not believe that a global flood occurred, and believe that the earth is old?
Do you believe that it is reasonable for a person who knows very little about science to become an inerrantist?
Why do you suppose that the majority of Christian experts accept theistic evolution instead of creationism, do not believe that a global flood occurred, and believe that the earth is old?
Last edited:
Draka
Wonder Woman
The ToE? Why, yes, it is. The rest of what you said...not really.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
rusra02
You should start accpeting evolution is a scientific fact, billions of them.
Species
While the exact number of early human species is debated, on this page are links to summaries of the early human species accepted by most scientists. Click on any species to learn more about it.
Below the summaries is a chart showing the time span during which fossils of each species have been found.
Species | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Remains of the most recently discovered early human species, Homo floresiensis (nicknamed Hobbit), have been found between 95,000 and 17,000 years ago on the Island of Flores, Indonesia. H. floresiensis individuals stood approximately 3 feet 6 inches tall, had tiny brains, large teeth for their small size, shrugged-forward shoulders, no chins, receding foreheads, and relatively large feet due to their short legs. Despite their small body and brain size, H. floresiensis made and used stone tools, hunted small elephants and large rodents, coped with predators such as giant Komodo dragons, and may have used fire.
The diminutive stature and small brain of H. floresiensis may have resulted from island dwarfisman evolutionary process that results from long-term isolation on a small island with limited food resources and a lack of predators. Pygmy elephants on Flores, now extinct, showed the same adaptation. The smallest known species of Homo and Stegodon elephant are both found on the island of Flores, Indonesia. However, some scientists are now considering the possibility that the ancestors of H. floresiensis may have been small when they first reached Flores.
Homo floresiensis
Or that we weren't the only members of the humans on the planet not that long ago?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin
Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.
Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving | LiveScience
Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.
Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving | LiveScience
The Bible gives this answer: "There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching,but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories." (2 Timothy 4:3,4) False "Christian" religions have misrepresented both God and the Bible. For example, the Bible doesn't teach the earth is only 10,000 year old, nor that the creative "days" were 24-hour periods. Clergymen who claim to represent Christ but who reject Bible accounts as 'myths' and 'fables' are not following the Christ, who trusted the Holy Scriptures to be "the truth." (John 17:17)
It is one thing to authoritatively issue statements. It is quite another to prove those statements. A creature's ability to adapt to a changing environment is a far cry from producing an entirely new kind of plant or animal. Yet, that adaptive ability in living things is termed 'evolution', which is misleading at best, and dishonest at worst.
rusra02
You should start accpeting evolution is a scientific fact, billions of them.
Species
While the exact number of early human species is debated, on this page are links to summaries of the early human species accepted by most scientists. Click on any species to learn more about it.
Below the summaries is a chart showing the time span during which fossils of each species have been found.
Species | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Remains of the most recently discovered early human species, Homo floresiensis (nicknamed Hobbit), have been found between 95,000 and 17,000 years ago on the Island of Flores, Indonesia. H. floresiensis individuals stood approximately 3 feet 6 inches tall, had tiny brains, large teeth for their small size, shrugged-forward shoulders, no chins, receding foreheads, and relatively large feet due to their short legs. Despite their small body and brain size, H. floresiensis made and used stone tools, hunted small elephants and large rodents, coped with predators such as giant Komodo dragons, and may have used fire.
The diminutive stature and small brain of H. floresiensis may have resulted from island dwarfisman evolutionary process that results from long-term isolation on a small island with limited food resources and a lack of predators. Pygmy elephants on Flores, now extinct, showed the same adaptation. The smallest known species of Homo and Stegodon elephant are both found on the island of Flores, Indonesia. However, some scientists are now considering the possibility that the ancestors of H. floresiensis may have been small when they first reached Flores.
Homo floresiensis
Explain how a lot of humans still have neanderthal dna in them?
Or that we weren't the only members of the humans on the planet not that long ago?
There has appeared a steady stream of 'missing links' to humans that come and go with surprising regularity. "Ida" was presented by The Guardian newspaper as: "Fossil Ida; Extraordinary find is 'Missing Link' in Human Evolution." Just days later,
UK science journal New Scientist said: "Ida is not a 'missing link' in human evolution.
There is considerable controversy surrounding 'Hobbit'. The point being, don't swallow the kool-aid. Examine the facts for yourself, and don't believe everything you hear, no matter what scientists may claim.