Why Christians Misunderstand Science
Sometimes, simply asking the question provides the answer. Unfortunately, we all live in a world where advances in knowledge are attacked from all directions. In Einstein’s day, it was he who rejected the novel idea that the universe had a beginning, and that it was not static as he previously theorized. Although he fought it vigorously, the idea eventually dominated cosmology, and has now become the standard in all the cosmological sciences.
For whatever reason, my peers (Christians) seem to fall into the same irrational category that they so quickly place the naturalists. Why is this? Is it because we’re bad people? I don’t think so. Certainly our position on issues such as abortion and euthanasia would beg to differ with that assertion. Is it because we’re stupid? Some of the most brilliant minds of the last 200 years were Christians, so that as well cannot be the case. What then? What makes us so unable to accept fact as fact?
This question makes for interesting dinner conversation, and certainly plays nicely into the hands of those who would wish to extinguish religions altogether. But does it have an answer that is sufficiently explanatory? Some would say that it is faith that drives us to do irrational things, but I disagree. It is indeed faith that drives the radical Muslim to fly a plane into a tower, killing thousands of innocent people, as well as himself, but I don’t believe that is true faith, at least not in God. But perhaps there is a lesson to be learned, and an application made from this analogy. Perhaps it is faith, but just the wrong kind of faith, that drives Christians to attack science as if it were the enemy.
From an early age, Christian parents have been told (mostly by their churches) that science is not be be trusted, and although never given a reason why, these parents accept this doctrine as if it were in the Good Book itself. It is here that a child is implanted with a suspicion of science. It is here that the slope begins.
Unfortunately, the idea that science is the enemy is passed on from parent to child, as if it were a nugget of wisdom. If not here, then in church where well meaning pastors advertise this same doctrine to both parent and child. Depending on where the child goes to school, be it a religious or public school, they can be taught drastically differing perspectives on biology and cosmology, neither being (in my opinion) entirely correct, and although the public school system does slant in favor of reasonable, yet perhaps unsubstantiated, conclusions, it is the religious school who does the greatest disservice to the student, by promoting a satirized, and grossly exaggerated explanation of scientific conclusions, replacing them with theories based on little more than a well meaning clergy’s declaration.
These ideas spread, and statements like “If evolution is true, then why aren’t monkeys at my local zoo having human babies?” begin to circulate, being repeated by misinformed children and parents who laugh with condescension, as if the question was clever. These are the people to be most pitied. Their ignorance would be funny, if it wasn’t so deeply saddening. From top to bottom, the propagation of such ideas is deplorable, and I blame the church. However, I also blame ignorant Christians who, like mindless zombies, go to church and accept every idea promoted from the stage as if it were a proven fact. If you’re dumb enough to think your preacher is an expert in both Bible doctrine and theology, and all fields of science, then you’re probably the biggest part of the problem.
I’m not sure where it all started, but I imagine that it was, and continues to be the fault of weak-minded Christians, who instead of being like Elijah and being willing to let your faith stand up to any opposition, we choose to shield ourselves from opposing viewpoints. We use clever excuses to make ourselves feel better, like saying that we are “protecting” our children from “the devil”, but I’m gonna call it just like it is: we’re afraid to expose ourselves to anything that might test or challenge our faith.
But exposure is the one thing that is necessary in order to be truly informed. If facts challenge your faith, I pity you. Step outside and realize that there is a whole world out there that you are commanded to live in. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!!! Inform yourself!
Which brings me back to true faith. REAL faith doesn’t rely on ignorance. Real faith isn’t blind. The faith that most Christians have is detestable. Why do Christians misunderstand science? It’s easy: they fear challenge; they fear facts. I fear neither. I hope I’m not alone.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Fatal error: Call to undefined function: show_manual_subscription_form() in /nfs/c03/h05/mnt/48320/domains/nathanrice.org/html/wp-content/themes/ElegantBlue/comments.php on line 108
Top post mate. For far too long many of our brethren have played into the hands of the so called ‘objectivists’ who see religion as the antithesis of morality.
I’ve got no beef with science (being one of sorts)and no beef with faith (having some as God graces me with it).
I can understand, and respect, that.
I’m glad to hear of someone else who has a healthy respect for science, and a growing faith as well.
Thanks for visiting!
“REAL faith doesn’t rely on ignorance. Real faith isn’t blind.”
I disagree. “Faith” is not the same thing as “belief in God.” Faith, or at least how I’ve seen it used almost every time until just reading your blog entry, is belief without evidence or logical proof. It is believing for an emotional reason (it comforts you; a family member tells you must believe), and, as I’m sure you’ve established, emotion is rubbish for finding the truth (assuming you care, that is.)
Faith is inherently blind, in fact, any part of faith that isn’t blind isn’t faith at all. I can see you are wise enough to tell what most Christians have is a reprehensible quality, believing for belief’s sake, but in essence that is what all faith is. ALL faith is blind faith. The entire idea is ludicrous.
People deny observation of objective reality (science) due to seemingly compulsory desires to deny any logic, any fact, with the only possible goal their total devotion to a set of irrationalities.
Science is an enemy because it repeatedly shows the falsehood of theistic claims, which would be detrimental to religious belief, if not for the immovable, unreasonable, uncompromising, blind, deaf, and obnoxious state of perpetual non-thinking called faith.
Regards,
Ubuntu (I am because we are)
As I said in the article, if faith is based on ignorance, it is a BAD faith. Faith should be exercised based on confidence because of [insert past experience here]. Faith is perhaps not the most intellectual of actions, but it is understandable. For instance, I have faith that my girlfriend will remain faithful to me. I have that faith based on my experience with her.
So, from a theistic perspective, the faith of some might be blind, but my point in this article is that if faith is not based on confidence due to past experience with deity (regardless of whether you believe such experiences are valid), is noble, just as my faith in my significant other.
Also, as a secondary point, I would say that if your faith cannot stand challenge, it is also BAD faith.
Hope that was clear.
Nathan,
What you have in your girlfriend is not faith. Certainly you have enough evidence to support that she won’t cheat (”I love you,” “I never want to leave you,” acts of kindness, looks in the eye, etc — things that you experience with sensedata, but which are fundamentally different from religious experiences). That exact issue is actually addressed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HtY1chchM. Of course, here we have two separate meanings of ‘faith.’ 1. Belief in something based on insufficient evidence. (This entire notion is ludicrous! Why should it fit into the life of any human being? The concept is intentional, devoted, and over-confident ignorance!) 2. Loving commitment to and confidence in a person.
A personal experience *could* count as evidence, but, as has been discussed and demonstrated, they are really almost the poorest evidence you can get. One morning I awoke and saw in perfect clarity Mr. Eko from the TV show ‘Lost’ standing at the base of my bed and staring grimly into my eyes. After about 5 seconds, I realized that it was just a chance fall of a shirt hanging up. Replace ‘Mr. Eko’ with Jesus or Mary, and you have yourself a miracle folks.
That’s not to mention that people of all religions, and people of no religions, all have similar experiences.
If experiences were valid evidence, believing in something (of a supernatural or mythological nature; like God), then believing in something based on experience would not be faith. But since experiences are no more reliable as evidence than Magic 8-Balls, it is faith: insufficient evidence.
Even if personal experiences did count as evidence, why should you be confident in one, even specific ones like visions of Jesus? Since the rest of the evidence sways the other way, the logical, rational, and reasonable conclusion is that religion is false.
Wasn’t that glaringly obvious in the first place?
Merry Christmas,
Ubuntu (I am a person through other people)
I believe you’d agree that sufficiency is relative. To use the girlfriend example, sufficiency is different for every couple. I was an awful boyfriend in high school, and treated my girlfriend horribly for absolutely no reason at all. I had no reason not to have faith that she would be faithful, but I was convinced that she was not going to be.
Now, with my current girlfriend, I accept much less evidence on which to base my faith in her fidelity. She needn’t jump through hoops. Why? Because my idea of sufficient evidence is different now than it was then, much like your idea of sufficiency differs from mine.
My point in the article was to simply demonstrate that faith, in and of itself, is not abhorable. Like it or not, to some of us, we have sufficient evidence in which to base faith in a Savior. I’m not saying that you agree, in fact, I’m sure that you don’t. So be it. You and I are different people, neither inferior.
I appreciate you reading and commenting
Nathan
“I had no reason not to have faith that she would be faithful, but I was convinced that she was not going to be.”
Of course you had a very good reason: you said you treated her horribly, didn’t you?
“Now, with my current girlfriend, I accept much less evidence on which to base my faith in her fidelity.”
But it is existent evidence, and it is sufficient evidence to make the conclusion that you have. If all of our interactions with humans were based on faith, I don’t see how we could possibly function in society. How could I trust someone with my children on faith? Surely it would be someone who was evidently trustworthy, like a family member or close friend.
“Now, with my current girlfriend, I accept much less evidence on which to base my faith in her fidelity.
“Like it or not, to some of us, we have sufficient evidence in which to base faith in a Savior.”
Well, assuming you don’t mean 0 evidence is sufficient to believe what you want (I don’t mean that in a rude way), what evidence is there for a Savior? And why a particular savior and not another?
~Ubuntu
“Of course you had a very good reason: you said you treated her horribly, didn’t you?”
My lack of trust was my only mistake. Other than that, I treated her like a queen.
“How could I trust someone with my children on faith? Surely it would be someone who was evidently trustworthy, like a family member or close friend.”
Of course you wouldn’t trust them with a stranger, since the stranger has given you NO evidence on which to base any faith. Family members have. Like it or not, whenever you do not KNOW for sure how someone will act, yet you trust them with something, you ARE putting faith in them, even if only a small amount. It is my point that NOBLE faith is one that has enough evidence (which is relative, of course) on which to base it. You put faith in people’s actions based on evidence, and I put faith in the existence of God based on evidence. Apparently, there isn’t sufficient evidence for you. That is simply not true for me.
“Well, assuming you don’t mean 0 evidence is sufficient to believe what you want (I don’t mean that in a rude way), what evidence is there for a Savior? And why a particular savior and not another?”
That’s actually an intelligent question, as opposed to your bold proclamations. However, I must ask, if you’ve already decided that there is no such thing as evidence for God, then why ask the question? Are you really interested in learning, or have you already made your mind up. Frankly, the EVIDENCE supports the latter.
“I was an awful boyfriend in high school, and treated my girlfriend horribly for absolutely no reason at all.”
“My lack of trust was my only mistake. Other than that, I treated her like a queen.”
Did you mean that the horrible treatment was the lack of trust you put in her?
“Family members have. Like it or not, whenever you do not KNOW for sure how someone will act, yet you trust them with something, you ARE putting faith in them, even if only a small amount. It is my point that NOBLE faith is one that has enough evidence (which is relative, of course) on which to base it. You put faith in people’s actions based on evidence, and I put faith in the existence of God based on evidence. Apparently, there isn’t sufficient evidence for you. That is simply not true for me.”
Nathan, remember definition two:
‘2. Loving commitment to and confidence in a person.’ It is in no way related to definition 1. That said, of course you can’t know anything (much) for certain, but betting on a 99.9999999999999% probability is not faith.
“That’s actually an intelligent question, as opposed to your bold proclamations. However, I must ask, if you’ve already decided that there is no such thing as evidence for God, then why ask the question? Are you really interested in learning, or have you already made your mind up. Frankly, the EVIDENCE supports the latter.”
Since I do not subscribe to (what I call) faith in any form, I am prepared to change my mind in a heartbeat. By no one has ever been able to provide any relevant evidence towards the existence of any sort deities, so I have remained with the most logical belief.
“Did you mean that the horrible treatment was the lack of trust you put in her?”
Yes, I treated her like a suspect when she had done nothing (or very little) to make me act as such.
“Nathan, remember definition two:”
Definition 2 is also faith, the belief in something (the fidelity and/or commitment). Think of it like this: you get a new alarm clock for Christmas (as my sister did). You set it for 5 minutes from now, and it goes off. So, you use it to wake you up the next morning. By doing so, it could be said that you had faith in the alarm clock without sufficient evidence (only 1 example of it properly working). This is, of course, far less consequential than belief in a deity, but the fact remains that faith WAS involved. (use your imagination for a more consequential example. Believe it or not, they are everywhere)
It seems that, at least in my experience, the anti-faith crowd only seem to be anti-faith when it pertains to deity. But faith itself is not the problem (as clearly indicated in my article). It is blind faith, unchallenged faith, sheltered faith, irrational faith, feeble faith, faith which cannot be reasonably defended, that is most dangerous.
Nathan
“This is, of course, far less consequential than belief in a deity, but the fact remains that faith WAS involved.”
If it’s brand new, I tested it once (like you said), plugged it in, and set it to the appropriate time, why should I not expect it to work? If I woke up an hour later, wondering why I don’t hear it buzzing, I’d think, “Damn! Malfunction!” Certainly not, “Alarm clock, why hath thou forsaken me?!”
“…why should I not expect it to work?”
the same could be said of a deity, slightly differently of course.
You’ve not affirmed the deity exists. You have not tested its functions. You’re knowledge of it is infinitesimal. This is the difference between God and an alarm clock.
Nathan… In large part, great article!
It is indeed very sad the “Bible believers” don’t pursue a deeper understanding of science. Unfortunately pastors are in a hard position because they are expected to have all the answers- both about God, morality and life, and about where science touches theology. They need to at least be aware of good resources (like AnswersinGenesis or biblical science research programs) to which they can point people who have questions.
Oh, and a little note to Ubuntu. If you think you are ‘faith-free,’ you don’t understand anything about epistemology. Not to insult you, just an observation…
And furthermore, the claim (oft repeated by ill-informed anti-theists) that science is the enemy of religion is nonsense. Open up a book on science history and read.
-Matthew
Thanks Matthew!
“Unfortunately pastors are in a hard position because they are expected to have all the answers- both about God, morality and life, and about where science touches theology.”
Actually the sad thing is that they presume to be experts in all those fields (at least some do), not necessarily that they’re expected to be (I certainly would expect no such thing from a pastor, as I said in the article). That is what frustrates me because they tend to propagate misinformation to the masses who then pass on that same misinformation to their kids, etc.
I agree that they should be smart enough to defer to an expert, or at least someone more informed than themselves. Also, having visiting experts to speak on the topic in the church would be wise as well.
“If you think you are ‘faith-free,’ you don’t understand anything about epistemology.”
Well that all depends if you think accepting anything less than a 100% probability is faith. If not, then I am indeed faith-free.
Here is some evidence about Darwinian Evolution vs. Intellegent Design. If I am able to send a Word document, I can point you in the right direction.
Thanks!
Jay
Perhaps it is faith, but just the wrong kind of faith, that drives Christians to attack science as if it were the enemy.
And furthermore, the claim (oft repeated by ill-informed anti-theists) that science is the enemy of religion is nonsense. Open up a book on science history and read.
What drives intelligent christians to distrust science is it’s total denial of supernaturalism. The Bible calls this unbelief “evil” and “antichrist” spirit. If you caught my other post somewhere on your behemoth blog, you would have read enough to confuse you as to this problem. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about or what you believe, yet you criticize that same thing in others. I know what’s wrong with all of creationism, and all of science. I know why you can’t use evidentialism to prove God’s existence. I know why the natural record tells a different story than the scriptures tell. You do not. Instead, in ignorance you conclude science is your friend, and your friends the enemy. You are a really funny guy. Are you like, 18 years old? Just born again yesterday?
Creationism fails because christians couldn’t think their way out of a wet paper bag. They are DUMB. DUMB AS SHEEP.
Let me give you a hint: None of the currently popular models of creationism is worth a hill of beans, because they are all based in evidentialism. This is because modern ience is based in evidentialism, and the boneheads of yesteryear thought that would be a good place to start teaching the pagan unbelievers a thing or two.
They forgot to check the Bible, or ask God.
Anyway, you see, you suffer from that malady that besets so many christians, you are a intellectual coward. You will stand here in the face of science and defend it, because you know you can’t beat it. But you’ll only defend the parts you are comfortable defending, you’ll fold like a lame duck when it comes to molecules to men evolution. Because that would make you unpopular with the christian fundie ladies.
And when asked why you bifurcate your loyalty, you won’t have an answer, because you are just another christian dickhead who doesn’t know a f***ing thing about the subject he’s prognosticating about.
You have the terminal christian disease: ignoramus motormouth
h, and as for making the logical error of equivalence by refering to Newton and other christian scientists of the past as proof science and christianity are inseparably conjoined, where did you learn to think? Romper room?
First, if you go back far enough, say 200-500 years, EVERYBODY was christian! To say otherwise would have labeled you out of the game, essentially. But everybody, and I do mean everybody, thinks that the issues which separate science and faith is just a matter of perception. NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Galileo actually did see the moons out there, he did upset the church’s view of the universe, and he did so by observation. A more holy christian would not have taken the same data and reinterpreted it into something holy. It is what it is.
My point is that science today interprets the natural stuff the way they do, BECAUSE THE STUFF IS TELLING THEM THE WRONG STORY. HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Read your Bible. In the end, like Revelation end, the Bible says that the Beast and the antichrist secure the people’s fealty by causing fire to rain down from heaven and causing a statue to speak, and other miracles (the headwound healing). I don’t care if you allegorize this or not, the analogy still fits, in the latter times evil will use the very elements themselves to cause mankind to fall into unbelief. You should make the connection with evolutionism and SETI (which is very close to finding it’s alien you know, or maybe you don’t).
What’s the antidote for unbelief. FAITH.
But faith is a funny thing. You don’t get faith by osmosis, you have to be tried, tested, smart, and above all, near to God’s voice.
I don’t see much of that in today’s church….anywhere….including here.
Oh, and I missed a point about christian history of science.
You also failed to understand that epistemology, which you just learned by memorizing some crap out of a theology book somewhere, has changed over time. What God required and men believed and how they believed it was DIFFERENT in 1750 than it is in 2007. Or didn’t you get the memo?
It happened about 1925, mid 20’s anyway, and it is called “the line of despair” which essentially means that because of a series of unfortunate events which I can’t bother to enlighten you to here, the modern person is unable to understand what the christian is saying, because modern civilization no longer thinks in a christian construct of upper/lower story supernaturalism.
If you are not picking up on this, read all the works of Francis schaeffer, oh say, five times, and then get back to me.
The old christian scientist became obsolete because the epistemology itself changed through history to eliminate him. That’s why modern attempts by creationists fail miserably when they attempt to become geniuses and create (pardon the pun) a new methodology for doing science. NO ONE OUT THERE UNDERSTANDS THE ESCHATOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR FAITH, IT IS SO STUPID.
i’M SO FREAKING LONELY!!!!!
science WILL LEAD YOU AWAY FROM CHRIST, IDIOT, ULTIMATELY. IF YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THE STUFF, IT WILL KILL YOU, IT’S CALLED THORNS AND THISTLES, THE CURSE OF THE GROUND, AND BY GOD IT’S GOAL IS TO GRAB YOU AND TURN YOU INTO DUST.
What part of this aren’t you getting? Yes dominion mandate still exists, but as we get closer and closer to the eschaton, surely even a retard can understand the difference between general principles and specific applications.
So far, I have been preaching. If you’d like more concrete theology or science, just ask. You’ll have to grovel a lot, but to tell you the truth, I don’t think my fellow christians are worthy of hearing truth, I’d just as soon let them wallow in the s*** of their own making.
So unless you are reaaaallll nice, F*** YOU.
Sonny,
Posts of this “intelligence” level do not endear you to anybody. In fact, they make you appear quite unintelligent. When you learn basic conversation skills perhaps you can come back and carry on a real discussion.
Yeah that’s the trouble with people like you who think they know something, and clearly don’t even have a basic understanding of the subject. Yet you dane to pontificate.
John the Baptist did the same thing. He preached repentance and then cursed his ass off at those who needed the preaching the worst, the religious bigots. He gave them a reason to reject his message, and they, like the dumbasses they are, took the bait every time. Yet you would emphatically support the very science that seeks to oust your God from the world of reason, a science preached by edophiles, homosexuals, athiests, murderers (abortionoh excuse me “reproductive medicine”, ethicists who preach a doctrine of clear racism and “final solution” politics (if you don’t think worldwide abortion and support of Islam isn’t about destroying whole cultures particularly western civilization and christianity, you are dumber than I thought). You throw your support to something you don’t even understand because you are what Paul called “weak-minded” and what John called “lukewarm”. You equate functional science with truth, and the two are not even related, nor do you know why that is so.
You are so uninformed of theology that when faced between a choice of choosing between functionality and God’s word, you would seek to change your interpretation of the Word to match your understanding of the science, exactly what Paul said you would do. But first in order to make the choice, you would have to have a correct theology to begin with, and you don’t even have that. You are screwed both ways, man, LOL.
Your a funny guy Mr. Science and Faith blogger.
I am no longer a Christian due to the ignorance and niave thinking I have seen among too many Christians to even want to identify myself with the very term “Christian.” It has become an embarassment to anyone with a reasonable IQ I feel. First of all, to take the Bible literally in all parts despite the inconsistencies and fact that people have manipulated and mistranslated the words, is patently absurd.
To deride people for accepting evolution, when we have found fossils is simply outrageous. What is wrong with believing that God created evolution? I went to Christian school in junior high and was told that Satan put the fossils in the ground to trick people. Even as a 12 year old I knew how ignorant and absurd that was and it turned me away from Christianity. I should have stayed away, far away, but I did go back for a time.
That was until I was told that even though a human being was good, say the Dali Lama for example, they are still going to eternal hellfire because they do not believe in the Christian perception of God. That is an outrageous, unacceptable claim and I do not believe Jesus Christ ever made it.
What I do believe is that the “sheep”, animals not known for a high degree of intelligence, are being misled by at worst, by self-serving, outright con artists, and at best, well-intentioned, good-hearted, but brainwashed people who indeed have fallen for the fallacies themselves.
The spiritual teachings, the morality is very attractive in a a time of rampant immorality and materially focused garbage. However, this simplicity of Satan vs God, beautiful teachings of Christ on one hand, but oops-if you don’t believe like us, you are going to hell on the other–does not and will not work. If you buy that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Its about control. In fact, if the motives are not pure, it may be the people using this fear based propaganda who taste hell for themselves.
No good Being is going to say, go ahead do whatever you want that harms others, and I have already taken care of it so don’t worry as long as you believe in Me. Hitler could be in Heaven right now based on that misguided mentality, as long as he accepted Jesus on his deathbed. Does that make sense to you?
And oh, someone like the Dali Lama no matter how much good he/she has contributed to humanity will burn in eternal hell because he rejects the divinity of Jesus.
No. No. And no. Christ came to teach Christ consciousness and Christians are engaging in major idolatry with this fixation on Jesus as God. To have a divine figure take responsibility for YOUR actions simply shows a fundamental character defect. Not only that, its been done before, or didn’t you know, the pagan concept precedes Christ.
Christianity will continue to experience this massive backlash because guess what, it is not athiests etc, but former Christians with the strongest objections.
As a sidenote, I firmly believe in God, but it sure is not the Christian misperception of God.
Nathan,
You said, “From an early age, Christian parents have been told (mostly by their churches) that science is not be be trusted, and although never given a reason why, these parents accept this doctrine as if it were in the Good Book itself. It is here that a child is implanted with a suspicion of science. It is here that the slope begins.”
“it is the religious school who does the greatest disservice to the student, by promoting a satirized, and grossly exaggerated explanation of scientific conclusions, replacing them with theories based on little more than a well meaning clergy’s declaration.”
Your evidence for these statements are…. This is no different then “the people…most pitied”. “Their ignorance would be funny, if it wasn’t so deeply saddening.” Mere strawmen arguments. It seems after reading your posts one would conclude that christians are scared of science because of the clergy. Most of the churches I attended growing up were Pentecostal, Baptist, Calvary Chapel, Reformed, and Orthodox Presbyterian. I never once heard such silly remarks as you mention the clergy making. Actually in one of the churches I attended there were many differing views on the science. And I can’t remember a Pastor saying anything in one sermon even about the creation/evolution debate. I also went to private christian schools all my upbringing and never heard such absurd statements. My teacher was an ex-evolutionist and knew the reasoning behind evolutionary thinking and never once said such a silly remark as babies from monkeys. So to make a post that makes all churches/private schools out to be the cause of the fear of science in christians is just as absurd to me as your concern for the ignorant people. And my parents never slanted me in one way or the other. They never brought up the subject.
Now I believe that the subject should be brought and hopefully it is now in the church being brought up and in the home.
I believe many christians are skeptical of science not scared of it. They are skeptical of unbridled science that is willing to conclude anything even at the expense of the knowledge that the Creator has revealed in His Word. That is where I am skeptical. I know for sure that many many and many more scientist are not necessarily and not even close to being concerned about what God has to say in His Word when they go to do their science (and that is not a strawman at all). And so much time and money is wasted on theories that aren’t even possible granting the truth of the scriptures to be true. I am not against science but a science that is not consistent with it’s Creator can only be false science assuming there is a Creator which you and I both do. Thus any science that is heading in a direction that is inconsistent with the scriptures we SHOULD and OUGHT to be skeptical of. Unless of course the scriptures are insignificant. But that is not my position and neither is it yours.
Science is good. I grew understanding that many scientist were believers in God and many in the God of the scriptures. I was never taught in my private schooling, church, or home to fear science. But the Bible teaches me to be skeptical of any position that is inconsistent with what God teaches and therefore any science that leads to conclusions that are contradictory to the scriptures is without a doubt in my mind false though there may be some truths within a false system if you will. And those truths shouldn’t be ignored that are consistent with scripture.
Take care, Nathan.
I just wanted to make a comment that your argument is not what I have experienced and so I found your reasoning as to why christians fear science unexperiential in my case and thus an unhealthy view of why christians fear science if they even do. Christians may fear not being knowledgeable enough about a subject to be able to defend against a position. I find that in my life but that goes for anyone and that is just a fact all have to live with for nobody knows everything. Everybody will be lacking knowledge in something and they will be insecure about what they lack or don’t know that much about cause they may say something stupid and sometimes do. And you may be right that there may be some churches and private schools and parents that do what you claim they do but how many of them? (definitley not all and if not all then how many?)
Don’t mean to be harsh or rude. Just didn’t want this post to go on without a defense that this may not be the case.
Later
Nathan,
I found this article on AIG’s site that may be of interest to you concerning your subject at hand. Again only wishing God’s best for you and yours. I believe you just got married so congrats. Take care, Tim
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/04/do-creationists-reject-science
Christianity and Science are both vague concepts.
Some Christians accept science but don’t believe in evolution, they have their reasons. There may be more scientists (based on your reasoning) that reject science than there are Christians that reject evolution. That is to say there are numerous scientific theories that are accepted by some scientists while being rejected by other scientists. One can say on average scientists reject more scientific theories than Christians. Seeing that there aren’t many scientific theories rejected by the Christian community.
Whenever you are confused by the thought that Christians reject science just remember how many scientists laughed at Joseph Lister because his arguments on antiseptic and the treatment of blood were based on the book of Leviticus.
We don’t reject science we reject evolution. It is important to look at all the facts before making any assumptions. The fact is Christians reject evolution, and some reject your claims on the age of life on the earth.
“But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;
and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;”
1 Corinthians 1:27
pattern-(energy/different pattern)=new pattern
p-(e/d) = n
This formula represents a simple ‘foolish’ truth that has confounded many wise evolutionists. This formula simply states every new pattern (n) is a result of a previous pattern (p) minus energy (e) being divided into or through a different pattern (d). For example, if you throw (e) a mirror (p) against a wall (d) it would result in shards of glass (n).
Why is this important? Well it doesn’t just prove God’s existence it disproves evolution. The formula simply claims that every new pattern (n) is a result of a larger more complex pattern (p). This is a simple foolishness that will confound every wise evolutionist. I have presented it to many and the only response I have gotten is… well it can’t prove a specific god or theology or some may say, go read a book on evolution because the evidence is clear. If anyone has a counterargument or an affirmation please do tell.
To reiterate the argument, we know the human brain exists (n) so what was the original object or being (p) that led to the creation of us. According to the Bible…
God’s brain or thoughts-(God’s energy/dirt or clay)=human brain
Amen.
@nishaun
“To reiterate the argument, we know the human brain exists (n) so what was the original object or being (p) that led to the creation of us. According to the Bible…God’s brain or thoughts”
Applying your own policy to its next logical step in the causal timeline, you would have to ask, and answer, the question … What is the cause (p) of God’s brain (n)?
According to your rules, there must be one.
Unless, of course, you’ve arbitrarily decided to halt the causal chain at God, since your logical causal chain is infinitely regressive. But that would be intellectually dishonest. You can’t just claim an exclusion. Either your logic is correct, or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways.
Nathan
Ah, so you’re asking who created God, (I’ve never heard that one before.)
My formula works because of the laws of energy tranferance like inertia and equal opposite reaction. All objects inside the universe have to fight the universe. That is to say…as you walk you have to fight gravity and inertia, etc. That is why things can only get weaker, things can only decay never evolve.
The rules are different once you are outside this universe. Cause and effect changes. But to be more clear, I haven’t built a formula for God yet. But it will involve the fact that nothingness is still something. Here is a primitive version of my God formula.
Energy is synonymous with ‘will’ and motion, that is to say energy ‘wants’ to move. Therefore empty space is still ‘energy’ because it lacks motion. Therefore nothingness is still motion, maybe nothingness is God.
I haven’t written that formula yet…