How can some Christians claim not to "believe in science"?

Question

That's just retarded, so you don't believe in your computer then? Or your television?

Answer 1

Nah, they just don't believe in the bits that don't suit them.

Answer 2

"C]reationists and evolutionists... accept and use the same methods of research in both origin and operation science. The different conclusions about origins arise from different starting assumptions, not the research methods themselves."

-PLEASE do not ever compare creationists to scientists.
A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.

Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, "intelligent design" creationism makes no testable predictions at all - it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer's goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided - and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them - ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an "appearance of age" - that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.

Answer 3

They don't believe in the scientific THEORIES about the creation of the Earth.
They believe the things that are factual and not necessarily the theories.
If these theories contradict what they believe to be the truth according to the Bible, then they do not believe such things. They place their faith on the Bible's teachings. You may think that's retarded but it's pointless to argue, really.

"Arguing with a fool proves there are two."



Is science not a religion on its own? Some parts proven true, others that cannot be proven at all.

Answer 4

It isn't so much a question of not believing in science as it is the starting assumptions of evolutionists when performing "origin science".

"1. Operation science uses the so-called 'scientific method' to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe....
2. Origin science attempts to discover truth by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see....

[C]reationists and evolutionists... accept and use the same methods of research in both origin and operation science. The different conclusions about origins arise from different starting assumptions, not the research methods themselves."

Answer 5

Personally I don't have any issues with either - I became a Christian long before I studies science -I'm now nearing the end of my human biology degree and enjoying see the two match up - if anything it has helped my faith not hindered it

Answer 6

Christians believe in Science .My daughter is preparing for the medical field. Science is her principle study as a Biology major. She is also a commited christian.She also believes in Biblical Creation. Do you believe in Biblical Creation? By the way, Many Scientists believe in Creation.

Answer 7

I believe in science. I believe what I can observe.

Today mainstream science seems to be more akin to mainstream science fiction.

Scientists routinely hypothesize things that contradict what can be observed.

The first law of thermodynamics proves that energy can not be created, yet the big bang is a hypothesis for creating energy.

If half of what scientists claim is true, Star Wars, Star Trek and Buck Rodgers are an actual reality somewhere out there. Think about that!

Answer 8

I believe that they mean they don't have faith in the secular scientist to the point that tey would believe anything that they are told by them. For the most part, most of them wouldn't admit if their studies disprooved their endoctrination into evolution. They would somehow make it fit. They are determined that there is no God , period.There are Christian scientists, you know.I don't know any Christians that don't "believe in science". Not one.However I know many that do not believe in evolution.

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."

Answer 9

Why do those that believe in science see that God gave them the ability to learn science and preform it and use it for the good. It isn't to use for the bad.
God gave the scientist their brain and body, who gave you yours? I don't know a christian that doesn't believe in science, only things like revolution or things that have no proof.

Answer 10

Listen, to them, the world is simple.

In there lifetimes they have not yet experienced the complexity of the biosphere. Everything their simple weakminds cannot comprehend is just entered as magic. such as, where we came from and how we got here.

magic.

otherwise, its more of a weak-minded fear.

fear that the ones they loved are going to be gone forever.

denial.

so you can go with, denial, or stupidity.

your choice.

Answer 11

I'm Christian and I believe in science. God gave us the knowledge to learn and that is what science is