Posted on 06/17/2007 6:54:37 PM PDT by Rodney King
Because the bible is clear.
Science is a wonderful tool with which to explore the physical world. Since God is spirit, of course, science is not an appropriate tool with which to explore Him and His character.
That said, all of creation speaks of His existence.
Why wouldn't it be appropriate to examine what God has created in order to learn about Him?
You might want to do a little research before embarrassing yourself by making comments about things you obviously don’t understand (such as the Bible/science).
==Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?
If you honestly believe that nothing is too hard for God, then why won’t you take Him at his WORD! He saw fit to inform us that he created the plants and animals fully formed and fully functional. Are you calling God a liar?
==That a mechanism (natural selection) so powerful, so beautiful and yet so simple exists just might testify to the existence of God seems beyond them.
Creation scientists have no problem with natural selection/survival of the fittest in terms of explaining variation within the limits of the created “kinds”. What they have a problem with is the Church of Darwin’s religious claims that natural selection accounts for the ORIGIN of species (every species, starting with the pre-biotic soup, then simple cells, simple organisms, and so on down the line right DOWN to modern man). Even evolutionists admit that the testimony of the fossil evidence is decidedly against such claims. Take for instance the stunning admission of Stephan Jay Gould (a Darwinist in good standing who tried to make the Theory of Evolution fit the fossil record with his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium...and failed miserably). He nevertheless admits the following, and yet still managed to cling to his Darwinist faith because the alternative would simply be too “incredible”:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.
Gould, S.J. (1977)
“Evolution’s Erratic Pace”
Natural History, vol. 86, May
I didn’t say science investigated God (and he certainly didn’t invent science). I said investigations bump up against religion, as in biology and natural selection, at which point the scientific method is deemed a god-hating fantasy.
Yet that same set of procedural processws has marvelous applications and accomplishments in other fields of human exploration. Odd, that.
I'm not a theologian and have never claimed to be one. But I do take my religion seriously, and I do have more than a passing familiarity with "science," having been a scientist for longer than I suspect most posters on this site have been alive.
If you honestly believe that nothing is too hard for God, then why won’t you take Him at his WORD! He saw fit to inform us that he created the plants and animals fully formed and fully functional.
You should read some commentaries on Genesis to better understand why your position is ill-informed and, with all due respect, a bit facile. Genesis was never intended as a literal, step-by-step cookbook recipe for Creation. In fact, when read that way, you find many problems, not just with science, but internally and with other books of the Tanach. Instead, Genesis is allegory, representing first and foremost God's responsibility for Creation, His primacy, His special bond with mankind, and His covenant. Now I could argue this all day with you, but, as you have correctly surmised, I am not a theologian. Instead, I'd like to refer you to commentaries on Genesis by the great biblical scholars, many (if not most) of whom seem to have reached the same conclusion hundreds of years before Darwin was a glint in his mother's eye. Nachmanides, Maimonides, and even Augustine recognized the literal problems and the allegorical potentials of Genesis. You should argue with them, not with me. I'm sure you'll consider yourself up to the challenge.
Are you calling God a liar?
Again, this is simple silliness. If anybody is calling God a liar, it's those on your side of the aisle who think that the Lord created the universe with a dishonest appearance of great age, even though you say it's only 6000 years old. Why would God wish to deceive us by creating microwave background radiation? Why does He want us to think the universe is 13.7 billion years old if it isn't?
I beg to differ. The bible is far from clear. If the bible were clear there would be no questioning of debate. The authorship of the Bible is GOd, but the reproduction and interpretation of the Bible is that of both corrupt and imperfect man. Perhaps the following best sums it up:
"God wished difficulties to be scattered through the sacred books inspired by him, in order that we might be urged to read and scrutinize them more intensely, and, experiencing in a salutary manner our own limitations, we might be exercised into submission of mind." (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 45, cf. At. Augustine)
I appreciate your interest, and for giving me an opportunity to address your questions.
The entire premise of Jesus’ incarnation was to save humanity from sin and death, something introduced by Adam in the Garden of Eden (see 1 Cor. 15:22, Romans 5:12, Romans 5:17, and of course the first chapters of Genesis). Sin and death (a key element of evolution) did not exist prior to Adam’s sin, according to Scripture (”sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin”). Scripture is clear that the first human was Adam, and that He was intentionally created as the first by God, Eve then being created second (1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Tim. 2:13, and Genesis).
Jesus believed that the Old Testament was true, in fact and not just as metaphor. He spoke of Jonah as fact, for example, and not just as a story (Matthew 16:4, Luke 11:30). He spoke of Noah’s flood as a fact (Matthew 24: 37-39, Luke 17:26), and not merely as a metaphorical story. The burning bush, according to Jesus, was fact (Mark 12: 26). The destruction of Sodom was fact, according to Jesus (Luke 17:28-29). And so on.
And Jesus spoke of how God “from the beginning” made humanity “male and female” (Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6). This doesn’t allow for a gradual evolution from slime, but an intentional creation of distinct sexes, “from the beginning.”
Something interesting to remember is that Jesus existed in spiritual form prior to His incarnation. He saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven, for example (Luke 10:18). He existed before Abraham (John 8:58). And through Him all things came into being (John 1:1-3). He was there prior to and during creation (John 17:24), so when He speaks of ancient history, he’s speaking as one who has witnessed it, not as one merely proposing or propagating a theory.
Note John 5:46-47, in which Jesus says that if you believe the words He spoke, you will also believe the words that Moses wrote. Jesus is giving His stamp of approval on all of Genesis, for example, including the creation account.
Moses wrote explicitly that each creature reproduced “according to its kind.” A pre-human didn’t have a human as an offspring, but humans produced humans. This term “according to its kind” is repeated numerous times, perhaps for such a time as this, when many think that creatures reproduce “differently from its kind.”
Jesus said, “For whoever is ashamed of me AND MY WORDS in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed ...” (Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26). His words are difficult, sometimes going against common sense. But I am not ashamed of His words, though they go against the prevailing through of today’s “wise men.” I pray you are not ashamed of His words either.
Of course it is entirely appropriate to examine what God has created in order to learn about Him. That’s a wonderful way to appreciate His character!
Consider Romans 1:20: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.”
It’s subtle, what I’m saying. We can get insight into who God is by examining His creation. We can use the scientific process to examine His creation. But we are unable to use the scientific process with God Himself, as He is Spirit.
There are countless scientists who are Christians. So of course the scientific method is not a "god-hating fantasy." In fact, Christians should love the scientific method, as it gives us a means to explore the wonders of God's creation.
What an odd thing to say, gcruse.
Creation scientists? Those are rare birds, rarer yet than the Pterodactyls our author Mr. Farrah believes are soaring over Asia even as we speak.
... have no problem with natural selection/survival of the fittest in terms of explaining variation within the limits of the created “kinds”.
Oh yes, I've heard this explanation. So you believe that Noah took just two frogs onto the Ark, 5000 years ago, and in just 5000 years, two frogs have "evolved" into more than 5000 different species of frogs? Is your understanding of evolution really so deficient as to believe that that's even remotely possible?
What they have a problem with is the Church of Darwin’s religious claims that natural selection accounts for the ORIGIN of species (every species, starting with the pre-biotic soup, then simple cells, simple organisms, and so on down the line right DOWN to modern man).
It's remarkable, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that a few creationists still cling to this nonsense. You do know, for example, that the most-favored creationists du jour, the Intelligent Designers, fully accept common descent? Have you actually read any books by Stephen Jay Gould? Because I have -- and not the thin, popular ones, but his 1500 page magnum opus The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Nowhere do I recall any doubts about common descent. You fundamentally misunderstand punctuated equilibrium -- again, I'd advise you to read for yourself rather than copy and paste creationist tracts.
I’m glad you and I agree.
Now if we can just convince those who think science is a god-hating fantasy when it conflicts with religious beliefs, we’ll have done something useful.
That one is easy. Frogs can swim and thus did not need to hitch a ride on the Ark along with two dogs, two, cats, two elephants, two border collies, two duck billed platypuses, two termites, two pterodactyls and a couple of cockroaches.
BTW-Do you want to meet up in Mongolia to hunt pterodactyls?
I love chatting with you ‘true believers’... it’s always entertaining. Someone telling me I am going to burn in hell for eternity is a first for me,,, however, I appreciate it!
Dinosaurs drank it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.