Science has given us a realistic creation story, but Christians will not accept it. They will accept brain surgery, MP3 players, and flu-shots, but not the cosmological implications. Whassup with that?
2006-07-25 05:15:33 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Because they are hypocritical numbnuts?
2006-07-25 05:17:30 · answer #1 · answered by Stacey 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science does not have "teachings." It does not demand total adherence to its conclusions. Science is a never ending search for the truth about the physical universe. Evidence may point to one conclusion until more evidence is uncovered at which point a different theory rules the day. You are not bound to accept all conclusions of science. A good scientist knows that science is a fluid thing and not a doctrine to be obeyed.
As for the origins of the universe and the origins of man, science has theories backed by strong evidence, but since it can't be reproduced, no scientist worth his salt would concluded that it's "proven" in any way. Therefore there's no logical necessity to accept those conclusions just because you accept others.
2006-07-25 05:22:59 · answer #2 · answered by Dave R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I accept operational science, this is what creates mp3 players, sends ppl to the moon and gives us medicine. However, I have objections to the conclusions that ppl have regarding origins science, which deals with the past and where we came from. For origins science, we have to make various assumptions bc we weren't there to observe it. Even I, as a Christian, assume the Bible to be true. An atheist assumes God doesn't exist, even though they can't prove it. We each look at the universe through different worldviews, so we come to different conclusions after examining historical evidence, this doesn't change the fact that operational science works today. Operational science is observable, origins science isn't, so we must make some assumptions about it.
2006-07-25 05:26:37 · answer #3 · answered by STEPHEN J 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a difference between Historical Science and Operational Science.
Historical science has no way of doing experiments to verify things such as creation. Instead they make guesses based on a set of already formed ideas. For instance, Darwin said that the fossil record should be overwhelmed with transitory creatures. No such record has been produced. Instead there are only a handful of disputable fossils.
Operation science is the science of experiments. The rest of the topics you mention fall into that category.
2006-07-25 05:43:17 · answer #4 · answered by Joshua 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not ALL Christians reject evolution and the Big Bang. The difference is, Christians believe that no matter how it happened, God had a hand in it. There is still no realistic conclusion on how the first spark of life took place. I believe that the first spark of life came through God: after that, I have no issue with evolution, and I don't think there were 2 people named Adam & Eve running around without belly buttons. You don't like it when Christians make sweeping judgements about people - stop doing it yourself.
2006-07-25 05:22:14 · answer #5 · answered by They call me ... Trixie. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am sorry, but that is a blanket statement. Not all Christians reject scientfic teachings.
Not all Christians believe in six 24 hour days of creation. In the Bible it indicates that a day is a time period. It can last millions of years for all we know.
Since God is the creator of science, by studying it, we can actually come to understand and appreciate him even more.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2002/6/8/article_01.htm
2006-07-25 05:23:50 · answer #6 · answered by izofblue37 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When did Science have a set of teachings? Also, science gave a realistic creation story? Evolution is a theory full of holes, no facts. Not one point in evolution can be proven scientifically. People are coming up with new theories (theories still) to account for evolution's failures and get themselves discredited.
2006-07-25 05:58:33 · answer #7 · answered by P P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're talking about "science" as if it's a religion. Either take it or leave it, if you don't want to accept all of it then you're excommunicated? Give me a break! I think most Christians have faith in certain things that contradict science, but also believe that mankind has been blessed with the knowledge and power to unravel some of life's mysteries through the power of God.
2006-07-25 05:23:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
once you've information than supply it to me.human beings dont comprehend why dinosaurs exist, and why the earth is right here, no longer to tutor technology. Out of the bunch there turned right into a sensible man or woman who keen to reason with others and word, human beings began to capture on and that is how technology changed into created. For the dinosaurs and earth etc. only because you dont have a reason it doesnt recommend it truly is constructive to make up an imadginary better being.
2016-11-25 23:10:17 · answer #9 · answered by sarris 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What does one have to do with the other? Being able to use an MP3 player or have brain surgery has nothing to do with cosmological implications.
2006-07-25 05:18:30 · answer #10 · answered by leo509 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People by nature use tools. We also want to believe in something that gives us reason. The conflict of interest causes hipocritical situations. The world must move on but beliefs will take a longer time to adapt. All this scientific advancedment occured so fast on the biblical scale. Plus the catholic church has always had double standards. Its hard to get around human nature.
2006-07-25 05:20:39 · answer #11 · answered by Brandon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋