Dr Stanley Jaki has documented how the scientific method was stillborn in all cultures apart from the Judeo-Christian culture of Europe.* These historians point out that the basis of modern science depends on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator. But if there is no creator, or if Zeus and his gang were in charge, why should there be any order at all? So, not only is a strong Christian belief not an obstacle to science, such a belief was its very foundation. It is, therefore, fallacious to claim, as many evolutionists do, that believing in miracles means that laboratory science would be impossible.
2007-06-13
14:28:40
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Tim 47
7
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Loren Eiseley stated:
The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.*1.
* S. Jaki, Science and Creation (Edinburgh and London: Scottish Academic Press, 1974).
*1.L. Eiseley: Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It (Anchor, NY: Doubleday, 1961).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/RE1/chapter1.asp
2007-06-13
14:30:52 ·
update #1
newton and einstein believed in God but I guess they were stupid for believing that creation reveals a creator.
2007-06-13 14:34:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ryan K 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
By your argument, if "order" that is, the natural laws of physics and chemistry for example,is proof of a rational creator, then a "miracle," being an occurance that defies those laws, would disprove the creators existence.
But you are correct that many scientific discoveries were made, and scientific processes developed, by believers.
Darwin was a believer, for instance, as was Einstein. But no science was ever promoted or improved by anyone who thought the Bible was the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or by anyone who presupposed to understand the mechanics of how God goes about his work.
2007-06-13 21:48:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by commandercody70 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Where do you get your information? Church had Galileo in house arrest rest of his life after he published his book.. ( oh and he got pope's permission first but when the pope saw how many people were reading the book he banned it)
besides look at the science in the creation Museum, they have Adam (pbuh) and Eve (pbuh) riding dinosaurs for God's sakes... even Muslim don't believe that
2007-06-13 21:35:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by Love Exists? 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Since God didn't snap his fingers or wave his hand and make the Universe in one fell swoop, we can assume that there is a method creation.
The Bible documents it
Science explains as much of it as it can
What no one can yet show us is a video of a fish becoming a bird, step by step.
No one can show how a bear becomes a whale on film, step by step.
And no one can show time lapse video of an inorganic chemical pool spawining life without human intervention.
2007-06-13 21:40:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Doesn't surprise me at all.
The Bible supports GOOD science.
However, many scientists have grave doubts about evolution being "good" science.
Dr. R.L. Wysong:
"(Evolution scientists) realize evolution means the initial formation of unknown organisms from unknown chemicals produced in an atmosphere or ocean of unknown composition under unknown conditions, which organisms have then combined an unknown evolutionary ladder by an unknown process leaving unknown evidence."
2007-06-13 21:37:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bobby Jim 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I very much doubt the validity of that statement, especially considering how much religion has prevented science from progressing over the years - like Galileo, the heliocentric picture, and banning bodies from being disected.
Also, your statement that a universe cannot be orderly without a creator is clearly unsupported. Same as the design argument. That's what we have physical laws for.
2007-06-13 21:32:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by eri 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
Who says there is order? Maybe you missed that part. If there is order why does a drop of water sliding down my hand go in a different direction everytime a droplet hits my hand in the same spot?
2007-06-13 21:33:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by Scott B 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Very true, but it was not Christianity that came up with that concept.
It was the Biblical Israelites, so your basically taking credit for passing someone elses idea off as your own.
Congratulations.
2007-06-13 22:50:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Gamla Joe 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's not strange to them. Their definition of "science" means unconfirmed wild theories that become fact if you repeat them either long or angrily enough.
2007-06-13 21:34:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by 87GN 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
Very strange, the desire for critical thought has been lost in today's Christian communities.
2007-06-13 21:33:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Golden Calf 2.3.1 2
·
3⤊
2⤋