Which scientific theories do you reject for religious convictions?

Question

And what's your religion?

(By the way, if someone believes there is life on other planets, does that transgress religious faith?...)

Answer 1

There are a lot of theories I reject for scientific reasons, for example the theory that mass increases with velocity. Electrons and photons both have a mass and both move at the speed of light.

Evolution is something I also reject for scientific reasons, primarily based on mathematics. The odds of mutations occurring at a time and in a way that would allow a species to adapt to changes in environment at the time of the environmental changes are astronomical.

Intelligent life on other planets would affirm my belief in God because of the odds against intelligent life having evolved are so high. Since I believe in God and that God created life I believe God may have created life on other planets.

Answer 2

Well, I reject theories on the information but I am constantly told it is because I am a Christian. Theories are just that, theories, and most have no effect anyway.

If there is life on other planets, and I personally think that is highly possible, that has no effect on my religion.

If and when something is proven beyond any doubt, my religion won't stop me from believing it. Most theories are a long way from being proven though. They are educated guesses, suggestions, conclusions, and bias by what the scientists already think is there. If you or I accept a theory and then research it that way, then that is not research.

Answer 3

I'm a Christian and I don't reject any scientific theories based on my religious convictions. I have no problem, though, with questioning scientific theories that don't have some credible evidence to support them. I also have a problem with theories being presented as facts, which seems to be a fun game some people play.

Answer 4

None. I'm a Muslem.
As for the third issue:
(By the way, if someone believes there is life on other planets, does that transgress religious faith?...)
It is not a matter of 'someone believes', rather it should be someone 'proves'
It has got nothing to do with transgression.

Answer 5

I reject the theory that mankind started out as inanimate matter that self organized and came alive all by itself and through the waving of the magic wand of radom mutations over millions or billions of years a human being was the result.

When we read a story about a frog becoming a prince we recognize that it is a fairy tale. When scientists come up with a bunch of speculation and couch it in scientific terms and basically teach the same thing we call it "the frontiers of evolutionary science."

Charles Darwin, always ready to come up with a theory about everything, explains how the "monstrous whale" originated:

"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859 and 1984 editions), p. 184.

"Rudyard Kipling, in addition to his journalism, adventure stories, and chronicling of the British Raj in India, is remembered for a series of charming children’s tales about the origins of animals. The Just-So Stories (1902) are fanciful explanations of how . . the camel got his hump (because he was always saying- Humph to everybody). Modeled on the folktales of tribal peoples, they express humor, morality, or are whimsy in ‘explaining’ how various animals gained their special characteristics.

" ‘Not long ago,’ writes science historian Michael Ghiselin, ‘biological literature was full of ‘Just-So’ stories and pseudo-explanations about structures that had developed ‘for the good of the species.’ Armchair biologists would construct logical, plausible explanations of why a structure benefited a species or how it had been of value in earlier stages."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 245.

Times have not changed; in fact, things are getting worse. As many scientists are well-aware, *Darwin’s book was full of Just-So explanations; and modern theorists continue in the tradition of ignoring facts and laws as they search for still more implausible theories about where stars, planets, and living organisms came from.

I'm a Christian and I reject the theory of macro-evolution for scientific as well as religious beliefs. Here's a link that puts forth just a portion of the reasons why the theory of evolution doesn't stand up to common sense when examined in the light of new scientific discoveries http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/143/

Answer 6

Evolution, carbon dating (some methods), macro evolution and so called evidence that can't be repeated in the protien electro matter experiments. I'm a Christian Sabattarian...I don't know about the life on other planets thing...I often believe that we have enough to deal with right here on lil 'ol planet earth to spend too much time worrying about folks who may or may not exist out there in great wide open. Love in Christ, ~J~

Answer 7

That Science and Faith are somehow in conflict is a myth perpetuated by non-believers to promote their own agenda.

In fact, God created Science and Nature and they are in perfect harmony with His Word and His Will.

If you notice, every time Science makes a "new" discovery (the Big Bang Theory, anyone?), it only confirms our faith even more!

Oh, God is so good!

Answer 8

Christian-I don't believe in macro evolution (I'm fully aware that micro-evolution occurs) or the "big-bang" theory. I believe there is a possibility for life on other planets in other galaxies, scripture doesn't say anything about it and the universe is an awfully big place...

Answer 9

I feel that both science and religion support each other. But then I view Chritianity from Christ's Point of View rather than from Paul's point of view. Check out the book "Gospel Enigma" on the following page for an explanation.

Answer 10

An outstanding question. One which I know the answer to but am unable to put into words. But, Dr. Ernest Holmes worte a book that will anwer your question: The Science of the Mind.