Misinterpreted science? Are scientists wrong?

Question

- "When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."
[Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research]

- The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology."
[Henry Morris, ICR President,]


"i don't think evolution should be taught as a fact but as a theory that some people believe in. i don't really know about this though, i haven't thought about it really but there's no way it should be taught as the truth." [Mark Goodwin, on talk.origins, 10/17/1994]

Answer 1

Never mind evolution. Teaching religion as truth is the biggest crime of this or any other century.

Williamzo says dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, but quotes every other chapter, but not the chapters the he alleges refer to dinosaurs. It is too bad that he has a closed mind, and is open only to quotes that support his foolish fables.

Answer 2

It's like this. If a scientist went back in time to say, one month after creation and made observations and tried to determine the age of the life he observed, he would logically conclude that Adam and the full grown trees were many years old. But he would be wrong because he didn't take into account the work of God one month earlier.

Today some scientists see evidence that is thousands of years removed from the events that produced the evidence and they come up with logical sounding "theories" to explain their observations. When they come to their observations with preconceived notions about what could be the cause of the state of the evidence that they are examining, they run a much higher risk of missing out on the truth.

It doesn't matter if their notions exclude the concept of God or any other possible explanation. If someone examines evidence looking to prove something they have already hypothesized to be the truth, then they will most likely interpret their findings in a way that supports what they want to believe. If their hypothesis happens to be incorrect, then after a period of time another scientist will come along and demonstrate why their theory is incorrect. As you examine the history of science you see this happening over and over again.

That's why I'm glad to know that I have the testimony of God given in the Bible as a "truth check" when it comes to examining what people have to say about the past.

Answer 3

If the premise of your question is: Has science, hence scientists, misinterpreted the evidence and drawn the wrong conclusions in reference to how life began; my answer to that is a flat no.

If on the other hand your question is: Have certain groups’ interpreted science and the data wrong, absolutely.

This is not to say that science or scientists are infallible, science is not static and when sufficient evidence is presented to falsify a theory then the scientific community re-examines the data and develops a new theory. Many find this objectionable, but one must consider that if science were static we would still think that the sun revles around the Earth and that it is flat. One also should remember that It is not in the name of science that millions have been murdered for disagreeing with the prevailing school of thought. Religion is responsible for that as it is for the intellectual laziness and wonton disregard of mountains of evidence that shows that evolution has, is, and will continue to take place.

The quotes from the RCI are meaningless, they are quotes from individuals that have failed prove a single one of their theories and that base their beliefs of a system of faulty logic, lies, deceit, and half truths. They also disregard mountains of evidence that contradicts what they claim.

Mr. Goodwin's remarks are clearly those of one that so lazy as to not even utilize capitalization or proper English.

Answer 4

Notice what Mr Morris said- "....science has...misinterpreted the data".
There is nothing in the Bible that has ever been proved wrong. There are many that do not believe it, but that does not make it wrong. Mr Morris and the ICR is ran by scientist. They all have terminal degrees from secular universities, and are considered experts in their fields.
You can 'cherry pick' their speeches and scoff at them on YA, but why don't you shoot your best anti-God questions at them, and not the mostly uneducated people on YA. Are you afraid they can give you an answer you can not refute?
The quotes you listed come from sources that have christian audiences intended. When Mr Morris addresses secular scientific audiences, he gets specific and scientific and as detailed as they need.

Answer 5

Scientists have been proven wrong many times, but it is the times they are "proven" to be right that we all hear about.

Evolution was originally taught as a theory, and most people believed the creation account in the Bible. It was after a few people (not the majority) complained that religion and science started to separate.

Answer 6

I do not believe that science and God will ever egree on much of anything. Not when science want to take theories and try to teach them as fact. I thank God that my children have had enough Bible knowledge to know that the science taught in school about evolution is hockey puck.

Answer 7

confident! despite if, that hasn't something to do with atheism. Atheism heavily isn't believing in any gods. scientific technique is all approximately employing evidence to objective innovations for validity. No looking is ever written in stone, as there may well be new evidence around the corner. So, technological know-how is approximately being completely open minded. It 's all approximately superb expertise nature employing the evidence accessible. If the evidence transformations, then the international view transformations to that end. certainly, ever because of fact that wide-unfold Relativity, we've regular Newton did no longer get it suitable. despite if, he have been given it exceptionally close, so we nevertheless use his regulations of gravity as an particularly solid approximation for non-relativistic eventualities. i've got not got a perception there are no gods, I only have not got a perception there are any gods. that's absence of perception, no longer perception of none. it is predicated on the completed loss of evidence of any gods, so they'd't be shown or rejected. If evidence regarded that shown gods, then that must be frequently happening. i'd have self belief in gods. each week I certainly have my international view replaced slightly as I examine the technological know-how press and discover out something new. from time to time this overturns something earlier theory, from time to time it augments something. So, all scientists continuously enable for scientific understanding being incorrect. it particularly is the straightforward theory of scientific technique.

Answer 8

At least somebody understands what is going on!

I believe that some science is true though but not all!!!

Creation is very real!
God bless you!

Answer 9

Science is more likely to explain thing than religion, the bible talks of false prophets, it's talking about itself

Answer 10

Religion and Scient can go together it all in the way you put it so