I'm sure that some will say they just don't believe or agree with specific theories such as evolution or big bang, however its seems to me that since the scienfic method is for the most part unbiased, that the objection is based on a fear that evolution will undermine religion.
Science is science and the same methods used in physics, chemistry, biology, and other sciences are used in support of the big bang and evolution.
2006-09-22 08:44:12 · 33 answers · asked by trouthunter 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
There are some subtleties at work, which seem to escape the notice of most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.
A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.
For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."
See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."
But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.
And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight, to be appropriately incorporated into one's world-view However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode, for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down... and ultimately, it will.
So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies, misrepresentations and pseudo-science that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They just keep blithely bopping along, doing what science does... trying to figure out how nature works.
No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded (willing to honestly consider alternative possibilities), intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a conviction that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.
We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.
When the religious enter a venue like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking answers, or new information... these might cause them to QUESTION their beliefs, or might put their beliefs at risk. No... they are closed-minded, seeking only VALIDATION of their beliefs... and hence, of their self-description.
*****************
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig
2006-09-22 08:48:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is not Science. It is the result science theories try to explain with observation and conjecture.
I am a Christian and have a PHD in Physics.
Evidence can suggest just about anything you want it to.
Being able to discern and actually understand what is supposedly objective evidence can be overwhelming.
I see it all the time.
Many scientists fully understand the principles, however many do it just for notoriety and controversy and thusly is biased.
The latter being the most misused.
Science is science, yes, but not to be misunderstood we have and may never understand where it all started. The human condition tends to be more emotional and with many archaeologists making observations, generally the ones that agree with each other are the ones who get published.
I have read many theories that are absolutely incredible. Most of what the majority reads today has been around for a while so here it is not new.
As for the big bang, some type of matter had to be there.
Even Physics cannot account for that. Just theory.
2006-09-22 08:57:12 · answer #2 · answered by dyke_in_heat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Creationists and Christians do not hate science. This is fallacious. There are theories with which scientists disagree. No biggie. There is substantial scientific evidence which logically argue against both theories. That does not make them completely wrong, but it does make them at least incompletely right and in need of refinement or replacement.
The methosds used to support evolution and big bang are plainly not the same as those which support photoynthesis, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Consider this more. Evolution and the big bang are hypotheses worthy of investigation. I don't know how they got tagged with the label "theory", but that has always been a misnomer because of the popular abuse of the term.
2006-09-22 09:25:46 · answer #3 · answered by Nick â? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A better question is why do scientists hate christians? I just read in Scientific American, a very intelligent, mature magazine how Christians should learn how to integrate evolution into their beliefs.
as a Christian (who reads Scientific American and science journals,Stephen Hawking, biology and physics books) I find it rather irritating that Science as a culture picks on Christians, as if we're the only group in the world that doubts evolution. There are many religious groups (Muslims are a pretty big group) and I don't see scientists griping that Muslims need to give Darwin a chance. It appears as though the argument is that "christians are ignorant and unwilling to accept what they don't know" but why won't the scientific say that about Osama Bin Laden's followers?
......right, and we're afraid......
The scientific method as modified by Karl Popper includes a principle of falsifiability: Basically, there is no such thing as fact, only evidence that is yet to be proven wrong (any statement must be falsifiable---you have to have a way to prove it wrong if needed). That's a DIRECT contradiction to not just Christianity, but any religion that wants to maintain a principle of non-relative truth.
Religious people believe in a real truth, not a being that's just waiting to be proven wrong. And by the way, on the principle of falsifiability.....How would evolution be falsified ?
Proving creation. :)
2006-09-22 08:54:48 · answer #4 · answered by loboconqueso 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do not hate science....I think it proves what the Bible has been saying all along. The Bible talks about the first people being in the Garden of Eden....and science says people are from that area as well. The Bible talks about a great flood....science has found that that is true as well. You could go on and on with these facts that science has discovered that were already in the Bible. I just do not like that a theory is taught as a fact. It takes a stretch of the imagination for a creationist to believe in the big bang leading to everything in the universe (and eventually-by a chain of events) life...just as it takes a stretch of the imagination for an evolutionist to believe that a superior being created our universe.
2006-09-22 08:59:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, nothing at all supports the big bang theory or evolution.
Meteors and the like crash into each other all of the time & all that comes out of it is rubble. Also, science seem to support adaptation not evolution.
Evolution is a term used too loosely, it's meaning implies that do to environmental needs a particular species changes to survive in the particular environment and the members of that species that has not changed subsequently died out leaving only the changed members of that species.
Science only exists to show how little we know & how much we'll never know.
2006-09-22 08:59:27 · answer #6 · answered by righton 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, science has recently come to support creationism more and more. I have seen numerous interviews and read many reports in the last year that have noted scientist recanting earlier evolutionism theories. It seems that as they dug deeper and deeper into the theories, they were unable to explain the original creation of the original organisms and have now decided that they were created by an unknown entity. Sounds like God to me. You can do a simple search on the search engine of your choice cross-referencing the two theories and see recent discoveries of many scientists not exactly aligning themselves with Christianity, but certainly stating that creation is the only remaining explanation for life. Check it out. By the way, I love science, I just disagree with some initial findings that were instrumental in separating man from God and now must be disproved. We're working on it though.
2006-09-22 08:52:59 · answer #7 · answered by reformed 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
However, science with evolution is still known as "theory". Religion is religion but God is not wordly so we cannot put God and creation in the same category as science for it is beyond what we know on earth. If science knew for sure the answer scientifically, then where is the proof other than the theory of evolution to which there is still no proof? If science knew for sure without a doubt, you wouldnt be asking this very question... Science is science and God is beyond all science.
2006-09-22 08:51:31 · answer #8 · answered by yeppers 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Christians do not "hate" science. We're just suspicious of it.
But often the scientific method is not followed in presentation of discovered "facts."
For example, because you brought it up, the Theory of Evolution has a mountain of supporting evidence, yet still lacks a final "proof." But now, it is proclaimed as truth while still lacking proof.
Since that happens so frequently, I'd say that many in the scientific community hate "scientific method" in their willingness to the needed proofs, and relying on presuppositions that further their own agendas and theories.
2006-09-22 08:57:05 · answer #9 · answered by Bob L 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't hate science and I don't think if I "understood" everything about evolution and all that will undermined my faith. I believe science is nothing but theories built on theories. I know you won't understand that but it is how I feel. And a lot of scientific facts and events coincide with events in the Bible but people just don't look at these common-knowledge event as acts of God. The difference between you and I, is I do.
2006-09-22 08:56:15 · answer #10 · answered by sammyw1024 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The scientific method is for the most part unbiased??? You must not be a member of the scientific community... lol I've heard some real interesting stories about how "unbiased" scientific research is...
I think you'll find that if you look at it honestly, you'll see that most religious people really don't "hate" science.
2006-09-22 08:48:26 · answer #11 · answered by Open Heart Searchery 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋