Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Aspiring Overseer | 33326 | ||
My Friend, Is it your opinion that man evolved? If so, what evidence do you have? Why would it be so impossible to believe God's design was to create everything fully grown and mature in every respect? Is anything impossible with God? Does attempting to piece together assumptions in incomplete and incredible schemes serve a useful purpose for you? We can always prove scripture through science, but we should not "bend" scripture to meet our scientific assumptions. That, my friend, is being a true "ostrich". |
||||||
2 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Curtnsally | 33362 | ||
Certainly man has evolved. One has only to look at the height of people now versus colonial times to see this. A quick tour of New England will show most colonial homes had six foot high ceilings... a little short for your average American these days. I could certainly believe that God created everything fully formed, in fact, that is what I believe. But there is ample evidence in the world to show that things have not stayed static. Things have changed. Does this conflict with Scripture? Not that I can find. No one is stating that we should bend Scripture. But there are times when our understanding of Scripture is wrong. This is not a flaw in Scripture, but a flaw in ourselves... our understanding. Or maybe you think the world really is flat, and the earth is the center of the universe? This was commonly held and Scripturally defended for centuries. My point is this, we should not assume that our theological understanding is perfect, nor our scientific understanding. But God created the universe, and the truth of Scripture and science of the universe must match. As Christians, I believe we should be about the business of showing how they do match. This is one way we can be a witness for Christ who is the author of all that is. On your side Curt |
||||||
3 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Lionstrong | 33396 | ||
Hi Curt, You write, "As Christians, I believe we should be about the business of showing how they [the truth of Scripture and science of the universe] do match." What is an example of the truth of Scripture and science matching? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
4 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Curtnsally | 33399 | ||
My first reaction to your question is: Oh my! There are so many!" Yet, with reflection, you ask a good question. I think we must start with a few definitions. First, I believe Scripture is primarily the history of God's relationship with man. Contained within this history is other information (like the creation account). Second, I believe that science is the study of the physical world... man's observation of things around him and subsequent conclusions about the nature of physical things. Now, let me give an example of science and Scripture matching. First, a simple one: God said, "Let there be light, and there was light". When we look around, there is light! Science and Scripture are in harmony. Science does not address the "God" issue, only the observation of light. Scripture addresses both. Nevertheless, they are in unity. A more complex example might be the flood story. There is considerable extra-Biblical evidence of a significant flood, both in the historic record as well as the world of geophysical observation and study. Often the difficulty in understanding the unity of science and Scripture lies not in the observation of data, but in the conclusions drawn from that data. The world view of the observer nearly always has a strong influence on the conclusions drawn. For example, if you look at the website of the National Center for Science Education, (http://www.natcenscied.org), their purpose is stated as follows: "We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out." Does this sound like science, or politics based on a particular world view? I think we as Christians must be keepers of the "whole truth", Scripture plus science... that science and theology should be able to coexist as one Truth from God. He did, after all, create the physical world. Did I answer your question? His, Curt |
||||||
5 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Lionstrong | 33411 | ||
No, you didn't, Curt. You raised more. You said, "science is the study of the physical world...." Then you go on to give an example of how the truth of Scripture and science match by saying, "Now, let me give an example of science and Scripture matching. First, a simple one: God said, "Let there be light, and there was light". When we look around, there is light! Science and Scripture are in harmony." Curt, is the presence of light science? You gave a definition of science, but this does not seem to fit it. Your more complex example raises more questions. I understand that we are not talking about conclusions drawn from the data but the observed data itself. So, what observed Flood data from Scripture and geology match? For example does a "significant flood" (which I take is the scientific data) match, "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died."? Gen 7:19-22 If your examples of science are examples of "the study of the physical world," then it is unclear what you mean by science, and therefore it is unclear how the truth of Scripture and science match. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
6 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Curtnsally | 33441 | ||
Let me try again, starting with a dictionary definition: Science: 1a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. The answer to your first question is no, the presence of light is not science. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of light is science. And that information agrees with Scripture. Scripture further provides that God created the light. This is not in the scientific record. Science records that (most of) the light comes from the sun, the result of nuclear fusion. This is not recorded in Scripture. Is there an intersection of data? Yes. Is there mutually exclusive information? Yes. Is either wrong? No. Do they conflict? Not to me, though others may disagree. Is this concept, in its basic form agreeable with your understanding of Scripture and science? Your second question requires a lot of text. Let me do an end-around, if I might. I attended a lecture by Roger Rusk, highly regarded prof emeritus of physics at the Univ of Tennessee (brother of former Sec State Dean Rusk, if you remember the 60's). He was a solid reformed Christian a well known scientist who had dedicated his retirement years to reconciling science and Scripture. His lecture (3 hours worth) regarded the geophysical evidence in the scientific record that supported the flood story as recorded in Scripture. It was incredible, but I could begin to do it justice here. However, based on that and other study since, I have no problem accepting the flood story as you quoted it from Scripture, and I believe that scientific evidence (insofar as we have it) supports that description. I realize that scientists do not often support Scripture with their conclusions, but this is often as much due to their world view which significantly impacts their conclusion. An example... Here is how the National Center for Science Education describes their mission: "We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out." (ref http://www.natcenscied.org/). This sounds a lot more political than scientific. Let me ask you a question... do I read between the lines that you don't think Scripture and science should agree? Why or why not? |
||||||
7 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Lionstrong | 33460 | ||
First, Curt, Welcome to the forum! It's good to see another reformed face in this crowd, even though you're from the outrageously liberal PCUSA:( (My prayers are for you, brother!) Francis Schaeffer wrote a little book "No Final Conflict." (I can no longer find my copy of it.) If I remember it correctly, he seemed to be making points similar to yours, but I no longer hold that position. I accept the definition of science you quoted, and I believe science and Christian scientists have a legitimate place. But that place is not that of revealing (natural revelation in the case of science) truth. In this position I disagree with another reformed member of this forum, Joe, who I highly regard, and many other fine believers here. Nonetheless, this is what I believe about science at this point. I was playing on your word "match," which you've happily improved it to "agree," "support" and "intersection." Should they agree? Not necessarily. One problem as you mentioned is world view. Because of an unbelieving scientist's world view, he may not even "see" the data properly. The other is, as I've said, since science does not discover truth it is not in the same ballpark as Scripture. It's only when Christians or unbelievers try to use it to "prove" or attack Christianity that it becomes an issue. Got to go. Pick up on this latter, if you're willing, Curt. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
8 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Curtnsally | 33466 | ||
. Thanks for the welcome! A brief response, as I am at work. You conclude with the question: should science and Scripture agree? I accept your observation that they often don't because of world view. I disagree that science is not about discovering truth... this in itself is a worldview question regarding the very nature of scientific study. Ie, Why do we do it? I think science "should" be about discovering truth in the physical realm (this is my world view, others may disagree). Science does not, however, address the spiritual realm, and in this regard you are right... it does not rise to the level of Scripture (or even close). BUT that doesn't mean that they should disagree. Your last comment about proving or disproving theology using science is right on. This is a mis-match of types for sure. BUT, I still hold that Scriptural truth and science should agree when they overlap, as God is the author of all. Regarding the PCUSA, I believe that our denomination (particularly in Baltimore where I live) is a mission field. But I can also tell you that, out of the 12,000 churches in the denomination, you would find theological agreement with 11,000 or more. There are a handful of liberals who make difficulties for all. Take a look at our web site (centralpc.org) and you will see we have a great little (conservative evangelical reformed) church. By the way, we are up to 1,100 hits a day on our church web site with the number one page being "How to become a Christian"! Praise God from whom all blessings flow! Blessings Curt |
||||||