shouldn't science and scientific theory be restricted to things which obey the laws of laws of science? if you wanna believe that there is a god and he made the universe by just saying so, that's fine. but under what law or theory of science does that belief fall under? if your claim is that god is not bound by the laws of physics and science shouldn't we leave him out of scientific discussions altogether?
2007-09-25 05:24:00 · 20 answers · asked by just curious (A.A.A.A.) 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
*which obey the laws of science. (my bad)
2007-09-25 05:24:54 · update #1
But to do so would not allow them to indoctrinate the children of other beliefs in the public schools.
2007-09-25 05:26:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
You are quite correct here. Creationists are alarmed, because many people are learning that their beliefs are nonsense. Preachers will need to find more honest jobs if everyone knows religions are not real. some devoius creationists study science, so that can distort it to pretend that the bible is scientifically accurate. such cynical con men should be in prison. The USA can suffer greatly if these men have their way, and the nation becomes scientifically illiterate. More people disbelieve evoltion in the USA than in any major nation except Turkey.
2007-09-25 05:32:03 · answer #2 · answered by miyuki & kyojin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe this should prove that science is not perfect. Science cannot prove the existence of God? That shows how imperfect it is in my book. Through the extreme intelligence scientists suggest they have, and yet they cannot admit they are not smart enough to match the intelligence of God in creating our world exactly the way it is; planets, sun, moon and human existence, along with the soul. They cannot duplicate what our God has made. Until they make another world like ours from nothing, they cannot stand there and say with total proof; "There is no God". And I stand by my faith in the word of God He is my creator. So yes, it is best to agree to disagree, and that includes not saying for a fact from our scientific community that there is no God.
2007-09-25 05:47:41 · answer #3 · answered by dawnUSA 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
By that you mean place Him with other things that also have no physical evidence. If there is no physical evidence of Him how can science conclude anything proper concerning Him?
The way you have compartmentalized your thought process has a leak in it. On one hand it is necessary to leave Him out of the process and on the other the study that does not include Him excludes and denies Him in the final analysis.
2007-09-25 05:37:43 · answer #4 · answered by sympleesymple 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If there is scientific evidence (which there is) for creation, then why cant scientific evidence be used to back up what the Christian has said all along? Or is it only evidence that backs up what atheistic philosophy claims the only evidence that deserves a fair hearing? Science cant prove ahteistic philosophy either so should atheists be banned from using scientific evidence?
I think the evidence should speak for itself irregardless of what philosophy or religion it happens to be supporting at the moment.
2007-09-25 05:40:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm not saying you, the asker, are doing this but this is in response to some of your answerers. Why do people think that if some Christians choose to believe in "intelligent design" that you need to throw away all of Christianity? I am a Christian and believe in the scientific evidence that has been found and the bible. Creationalists take the 24 hour days of Genesis literally. Many of us don't. I find that evolution coincides beautifully with the bible. Just wanted to say that. Thanks.
2007-09-25 05:35:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
God created everything that science anylizes. That would make him involved in the discussion. He is God and he created the laws of science when He created everything else. Science is the study of God's creation. People will always try to understand the world. Without knowing that God created it all, one will only look for the answers they want to find.
2007-09-25 05:30:30 · answer #7 · answered by Pro-American 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Since when is creationism limited to science or even part of it for that matter?
Furthermore it is not a scientific theory or a theory at all. You are the only one lumping it all together.
2007-09-25 05:29:37 · answer #8 · answered by m_c_m_a_n 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That would be true but the assertion has been made that we are created in the image of god. This places god and creation in the scientific realm (reality). And being in the scientific realm (reality), that assertion must have evidence, which it doesn't.
2007-09-25 05:30:44 · answer #9 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I guess I get what you're saying. God is above science, science can not explain him so we shouldn't try to. Sure I can get behind that.
But the problem is when your "science" contradicts my beliefs, then I speak up.
2007-09-25 05:36:01 · answer #10 · answered by Saved by Grace 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why the double standard?
The theory that lower life forms evolved into higher life forms requires an increase in genetic information.
This type of evolution has never been observed - hence unproved - therefore no basis for the claim by your standard.
The only evolution observed is selection from existing information - nothing new added to the code.
2007-09-25 05:30:05 · answer #11 · answered by D2T 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋