why is that most christians attack scientifical approach (even evolution) when they are doing exactly the same

Question

Scientifical approach tries to explain the world, and we live in a scientifical world since we are looking for answers and giving explanations about things based on observation...
Christians do exactly the same, they answer questions, try to find an earthly logic/way of expressing their beliefs, they dont just say: this is it because this is it...but they look in the bible and look for an answer that satisfies themselves and may convince others...in their need of explaining things to themselves and make their religion less absurd tothe ears of non believers they are doing exactly the same that Darwin in his days did.
Pageants in the middle ages didnt question or try to explain their beliefs, society was not influenced by scientifical approach, so they just believed and said amen if they ever didnt understand anything but today the world is science and even christians are influenced by it and as everybody else have become part of it.

yes but both are trying to explain based on observation...why do christians try to explain their religion??? god said so this is it...dont explain? why the need for explianing??? because you christians are as everbody else, the product of a scientifical world

dze no...what i am say is that even christians who refuse science or some scientifical approach use it...BUT religion shouldnt be expalined through logics...the need of explaining things comes from science and religious people are influenced by that need and they attack science...when all science does is looking for answers same as them, difference: religion is a set of god´s rules no one should try to make sense of, just take them or leave them

Answer 1

The origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance. During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.


Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith.
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

Rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.


It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude. To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4). Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God.

Answer 2

The fall of the Roman Empire lead to the Dark Ages, when science was suspended and the Catholic Church became the most powerful church in Europe, quickly the only church recognized by the various governments. They were responsible for locking science into that of the Ancient Greeks and any advancement wasn't just frowned upon it was illegal and in some cases heretical.

The bible was put together some time in the 3rd century from far older works so the science of the bible is far from current. However, some people believe that the bible is the word from God verbatim and science is wrong.

I was a Roman Catholic and I was taught the bible was a work of man INSPIRED by God. Now try explaining something as complicated as the big bang or evolution to a Bronze Age society, it's almost impossible to do because they lack so much information. So IF God gave man the bible then he had to couch it in a fashion that could be understood by the people of the time. However, the last time the bible was updated was in the Middle Ages and that ended up turning all the major biblical figure white, which left us no end of racial problems.

The bible says "The Earth is the fundament, and unmoving." We now know that the Universe doesn't revolve around the Earth, but the other way around. In fact as we learn more and more about the universe the earth seems to be a run of the mill planet in an average galaxy orbiting an average star. Galileo perfected the telescope and had the nerve to train it on Jupiter. When he discovered the moons of Jupiter he proved that not everything revolved around the Earth. That was revolutionary and for that crime he was sentenced to over 300 years of house arrest (the last pope pardoned him). The church couldn't take the risk that the new ideas would give their world. We still feel that resistance today.

I think that God is an invention of man and that we no longer need him, but that is a personal opinion. I was raised as a Catholic and I honor and respect the church for the lessons it taught me. The bible provides the foundation for all of our laws and Jesus set an excellent example of how to live your life (of course he got lynched for it); change is never popular.

There are many scientists who believe in both science and religion. Genesis says "In the beginning there was nothing, a void, then God said, 'Let there be light and there was.'" That is the best explanation of what the big bang would be like; a sudden explosion of light.

The problem is that if one word of the bible is put into doubt then the entire bible is put into doubt, and so the entire religion. Some people need that certainty in their lives and they can't accept this; so no matter what the proof they favor the bible over science. It took society almost 600 years to get over that and science became the foundation of the Renaissance. This was when European man first had the courage to depart from the science of the Ancient Greeks and we had to relearn a whole lot; from concrete to the fact that the earth was round. Organized religion has fought all of this advancement tooth and nail and it is responsible for more wars, more pain, and more death than any single source.

Religion has its place, but as leader of the human Genome project said, "Science is the explanation of the natural world, not the spiritual world and it has no business trying to do so." I would like to add that the converse is true.

The bible has its place in our lives and in our growth and development, but not in our science. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and science has no morals, only the scientists themselves have morals the two are different fields and we don’t look at the science of morality so we shouldn’t expect our source of moral code to also be the source of all science.

Answer 3

Most religious or faithful persons are afraid that if one can explain the world, or the universe, through the use of scientific research and study, that that knowledge will automatically erase the existence of God. Science can simply be a way to understand how God made the universe. Knowledge frightens people. People are afraid of change. If we live with our heads in the sand, we stagnate intellectually, but we can hold onto our prejudices and mistaken ideas, like believing the world is flat or that man would never fly. Perhaps science is a pathway to understanding the nature of God. Perhaps that's just what He intended. Now that's a thought, isn't it?

Answer 4

I can only speak to when I used to be a believer. It was definitely intimated that there was active contention in science between large groups of scientists who believed evolutionary theory and large groups who didn't. Come to find out that doesn't seem to be the case, that the scientific consensus is clear, and the difference lies been those who are fundamentalist or evangelical believers and those who aren't, and there are a great many believers who actually accept evolution. It is very rare in my experience to encounter anyone who actively denies evolution and is not a religious believer. Is that unfair to say, Christians? . . EDIT: @Esther et al: You see, honey, the thing is that science *doesn't* just say whatever it wants. Science observes nature, bases hypothesis on those observations, makes testable predictions based on that hypothesis, tests, observes some more, makes more predictions, tests and observers some more, and when the hypothesis is rigorous enough to withstand testing, it becomes theory. . That is NOT just the same as "saying whatever it chooses". That describes religion, your method of determining 'truth'. And since you give us permission to call you whatever names we want, I'll declare you to be a... never mind, that would be petty, and an insult to people who aren't like you, wouldn't it, honey? .

Answer 5

I can't speak for all Christians, but I live BY FAITH in God....and that includes His Word, the Bible.

God said that He created the heavens and the earth. Even though I took courses during my undergraduate studies in physiography and geology, I see no REASON/PROOF of anything else except that God created the heavens and the earth. So, I'll stick with my faith.

Scientists, who according to their own discipline, DO NOT live by faith/beliefs, but by proofs who come along and say that we should believe and teach that the world created itself ......but have NO PROOF are just pushing their own "religion" on people while denying the "beliefs" of others.

Proofs are not theories. They are not achieved by majority vote or belief. They are not achieved by denying other theories to be taught in public schools.

The LAWS of physics can be proven. When "evolution" is proven, only then will it be a Law. Till then it is a belief by some based on other beliefs.

The first proof should be to show that LIFE can be created by scientists who believe that it was able to come about JUST by accident. Surely they could achieve this on purpose.

Answer 6

good point. We Christians need to either go back to our answer of "The Bible says so" or we need to compromise our beliefs. The only way a Christian can defend his beliefs and still refute a scientifical approach is if he (the Christian) has a totaly different authority and mind set than the user of said scientifical approach

Answer 7

Regarding the masses, superstition distorts a person's spiritual life into religious moralism that is only relevant to their little ego fears and attachments. Science is irrelevant. According to the philosophy of Constantin Brunner they cannot be reached. Perhaps we should give up rather than keep offering rational, practical approaches.

Answer 8

You know I think people should think of it like this "God also created Science" so why cant we have both. He created the world and it evolved. Just because the bible (all religious works) state that certain people walked the earth, perhaps these people are mythological and created for emphasis or to push the lesson trying to be taught in that particular verse. like Adam and Eve for example. I think you can believe in both as long as you have an open mind.

Answer 9

Most Christians have no problem with science. Infact the largest of Christian denominations with over 1 billion adherants has acknowledged that evolution is probably how God created us. Its only a small group of fundamentalists - which seem to be mostly concentrated in the USA - that insist on ignoring science.

Answer 10

The basic difference is that science continually updates itself in the search for answers.Religion claims the answers given by primitive goat herders--in a less civilized time.Go figure!

Answer 11

the Gospel is foolishness to those that are perishing, I don't write here to tickle their ears, otherwise I would not love as God said I should love. Would it be loving to allow a blind man to walk off a cliff? It could never convince someone of the truth, that is Gods job, but he does allow us, at times to assist Him?
So to answer your question, I don't want someone to believe a lie, I want them to come to the full knowledge of God, that could stop their steps over the cliff and to certain death.