R Christian creationists trying to show that science supports the idea of or actual existence ofa creator-God?

Question

And does not this effort of using science in the service of religion contradict totally the idea or principle that a leap of faith is not about proving either logically or scientifically that a creator-God exists.

Pls avoid the temptation some may have to critique either the Q or the asker for asking the Q since neither effort is relevant to any rational effort to answer the Q and have a constructive discourse about the topic which is the relation betw *science and religion* or alternately *knowledge and faith.*

My Q is not about putting down Christians who have faith in God. It is intended to examine and reflect on the anti-religious logic behind Christian creationist efforts.

My Q is not about criticizing the Bible which has its place as an important and valuable religious text. It's about Creationists claiming that science must be based on a literal interpretation of biblical statements rather than on the scientific data obtained and interpreted according to the empirical and logical standards & principles of the non-religious methods we uphold for conducting scientific research and scientific theorizing based on reason and physical evidence rather than the beliefs or claims of our faiths. TWH 06142007-3

Answer 1

Your thought-provoking question would yield, I expect, divided opinions even among the creationists. But I believe most pure creationists would simply say that, when it comes to creation and evolution, the scientists have it all (or mostly)wrong.

The central themes of creationism; origin of the universe, of the earth, origin of species (if I may use the phrase) and origin of man take their data from the Bible -the Book of Genesis in particular- and take it pretty much as written. The data of science -which is not necessarily denied as factual material- is interpreted to fit into the biblical structure.

And so we have each side saying the same of the other: scientists with a religious nature say that the Bible must be interpreted; whereas religious people with a scientific nature say it is SCIENCE which must be interpreted. Both positions -and the arguments against them- may arguably be regarded as tautological -if not, to some, scatological.

Which gives rise to the interesting question of what data the creationists might use if there were no Bible. Some, I suppose, might "make up stories" similar to scriptural accounts; after all, that's what most cultures did until scientific methods took hold. But others might use actual scientific data and methods, which presumably would lead them to the familiar ideas about origins expressed by science today.

And the scientists who made that "leap of faith" to answer the big questions still unanswered by science might just as well come up with some "there's gotta be something out there" stories.

Which brings us to the "leap of faith" in the context you provided. I'm personally given to think that "the leap" is essential to belief in God and associated religious conviction, for the simple reason that God -if SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to exist- is thereby reduced to our level of comprehension and maybe even just our level, period. Any creationist who attempts to scientifically prove God's existence is therefore at the very same risk as were Adam and Eve when they took the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The scientists (God bless them) don't have this problem -they're still trying to describe and explain how the physical universe as we know it works. As Casey Stengel might have put it, "It's original sin all over again."

And that leaves "logical" proofs of God's existence, which presumably are immune from the demotional effect on God that pure fact would have, for the simple reason that logical propositions -no matter how well ordered and constructed- are, at the end, always an artifact of our own thought process and always, as well, subject to logical counter-attack. Rene Descartes and Thomas Acquinas -good Catholic boys both- have offered logical "proofs" of God -and everyone is still arguing about it.

After all is said and done, your suggestion, "..that a leap of faith is not about proving either logically or scientifically that a creator-God exists..." must be right. Faith may inspire one to build up evidence or develop supportive logic or experience a more profound sense of wonder -but it is not proof, and if there WERE proof -there would be no faith.

I don't know where YOUR cocktail parties are -but I WANT an invitation. Take it on faith.

Answer 2

Interesting question. I am a Christian. I also believe in science and appreciate all the good things science has done. But do I think that science is infallible? No. I don't think science has all the answers. I take the Bible pretty literally, but with common sense and science in mind- always. For example, the Bible says God created the Universe in 6 days. I don't have a problem with that because a day, by definition is when the earth makes a 360 degree turn on its axis to end where it began (one rotation). At the beginning of creation (the forming of the universe) there was an incredible amount of Force that was necessary to fuse molecules, atoms, and have all the chemical reactions necessary for the universe to form. Under the great force and energy there was also a tremendous amount of gravity to fuse all the planets together. The gravity would have been so great, scientists believe it was in the thousands of Gs (gravity). Objects under greater gravity move slower than objects under less gravity. In order for the earth to have 1 day (one rotation) it would have taken thousands of years for that to happen. So, in the Bible it says 1 day, science tells us 1 day (one rotation) =thousands of years. Both correct.

I don't think that science and religion are exclusive of one another. God created the universe and set all the laws of physics that govern the universe. However, he is still God and exists both inside and outside the universe. What I am saying is, he is not confined to the laws of physics he created. He can do as he wills. But the natural order of things can be understood through science and I dont think they are mutually exclusive.

I know why I believe what I believe. I have science to back up what I believe. I do not blindly follow whatever people tell me. I listen and investigate for myself what is the truth.

Finally, science can and has determined the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory is pretty much accepted world wide. Through science we can measure the speed of the universe and go backward to determine the beginning. The greater question is what caused the universe to begin. Newton's laws of physics tells us that "objects at rest remain at rest until acted up by another object." So, if in the beginning there was nothing, then someone had to cause the first action to occur to begin the universe. It could only be God, an infinite, omnipotent being that has the power to start something so powerful and massive as the universe.

Answer 3

Science proves Creation, but some things like the Great Flood which caused the extinction of dinosaurs, created things like the Grand Canyon and other geographical master pieces are mostly ignored by the scientific community. Some scientists say, "yeah, it could have happened that way, but it didn't." It's just human pride, we all want to think we can do everything ourselves, we don't need a Creator or a Sustainer or anything else, we know it all.

Answer 4

There's a difference between saying that science can give evidence of God's existence and science can prove God's existence. I believe the former and totally reject the latter. There is still a "leap of faith", but it is not blind faith. Rather, it is a faith that is based on the preponderance of the evidence.

Answer 5

In what way? You didn't say. Like for instance the Mitachardia Eve project where science proved that mankind came from one woman located in Africa with the same bounderies as Genesis gives for the Garden of Eden? But that wasn't Christians who initiated that so I'm not sure what you're specifically speaking of.

Faith is where a true Christian's belief is cemented. Whether or not anyone else believes is really none of my concern. I can try to teach a non-believer, but if they aren't ready to accept than it's not my place to 'prove' anything. Pearls before swines is the parable that teaches us that.

Answer 6

What creationists are doing is the very opposite of science.

Science tries to make an educated guess and empirically do all they can to test it and prove it false. Creationists take a myth written in ignorance and try to find anything they can to prove it true.

Creationists are left with a "god of the gaps" where the things we still can't explain are where "god did it" or they're "evidence of god." However we continue to gain more and more understanding of the universe and so the amount of gaps (and the gaps themselves) are shrinking rapidly. Eventually there will be no place for a god of the gaps to exist, and that will be an interesting time.

My guess is that, when confronted with absolutely no reason or existence for their god, the christians will declare war and violence will ensue.

Answer 7

You should go back to school because your question makes no logical sense. All I know is that Science supports the Bible, God's Word, and that is just one of the many reasons that I have faith in God.

Answer 8

But the temptation is relevant. Coherence in questions always results in more coherence in answers.

Now, as to the question of science and God, and whether anyone is actively working on demonstrating whether there is one: although such proofs are naturally abstract, since we are unable to examine beyond the boundaries of our universe, yes, there are people who work on that.

The discipline in question is called Teleology.

Answer 9

Agree. You could tell that by the whole 'intelligent design theory' push recently. Or even the 'creation museum'. Both names are an obvious attempt to give legitimate scientific name recognition without having any actual scientific facts or proof. It is a name game and sadly enough many will fall for the BS over time.

Answer 10

As a Christian and creationist, no. But of course things need to be logical.