Why should science not include Christians?

Question

For my college freshman science course, we were supposed to do a science project that demonstrated the scientific method.
I used mine to prove the power of prayer. I had two sets of lima bean plants. The first set I prayed for every day and every night, and set them out in the sunlight of God. In order to safeguard the results from any sort of bias, the second set was my control group. I did not pray for them, and kept them 'in the closet', in the dark of sin. The plants I prayed for turned out much greener and healthier, which confirmed my hypothesis.

My professor gave me a D on this, and asked me to turn another project in for a better grade. How is this fair? Isn't it discriminatory and biased to disregard results that don't coincide with your own personal beliefs?

Answer 1

Sounds like a fun experiment!

When the control group or test plant was kept "in the closet" and "in the dark of sin", were they literally kept without sunlight? Or just not prayed over but on the same shelf or spot where the other plant was located?

With prayer, there is energy. We are electrical beings with a nervous system, brain, and spine which conducts tiny charges. I did a science project on psycokinesis or the power of mind by which physical elements can be influenced. Compared to base line measure, fingers placed in a glass of water with a galvinometer to measure electric flow registered a much higher current when the tips of the fingers were slightly cut (surface skin only, not producing bleeding) as this allowed more electic current from the nervous system to escape and radiate.

A type of x-ray has been taken of two people holding hands, not in love, as compared to two people who were in love. The ones in love showed higher energy output than those not in love. It appears there is some energy to be found in the power of love, if even it is being generated by our own brains and internal electrical systems.

I wonder if you had put these plants side by side and recruited another person to help pray with you for one plant but not the other, if the same outcome would have been achieved, that is the prayed over plant flourished where the one not prayed over showed less growth or withered. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there too shall I be in the midst of them".[Matthew 18, versus 20].

In any event, I would not have given you a "D". If your experiment design did not isolate all other influences outside that of prayer for 1 plant and no prayer for the other, then the scientific design did not follow established scientific procedure. I still would have given you a better grade because what you were showing is faith and that by itself is very worthwhile.

I think versus an A here on earth, your reward will be in Heaven because what you did was a testamony of faith and affirmation of your belief and trust in God. Good work!

Answer 2

If the physical conditions of the two plants where the same or not is the point. I suppose that when you write "I set them out in the sunlight of God" and the other set "'in the dark of sin" you are referring to the "light" of your prayers only. If not, see the comments above. If however the plants where exactly in the same physical conditions (i.e. also of the same type and age, always with the same room temperature and lightning, etc. ) then a further step would be necessary to rule out coincidence. The experiment should be repeated many times over and over again (always checking carefully that the physical conditions remain the same) to show that a statistical meaningful difference is observable for one set against the other. Only then I would have considered this a "scientific" test. Anyhow, not bad as idea.... I agree that instead of giving a low grade your professor should have encouraged you to refine your "experiment".

Answer 3

He just wants you to run the experiment with both plants under the same conditions with the only changed thing being the prayer.

But, on the flip side, doesn't the plant in the dark need the prayer most? If plant A was already in Gods sunlight, how do you know if it was the light or the prayer that saved that poor lima bean. Plant B needs your blessings more....

Answer 4

You proved the wrong hypothesis. What you proved is plants kept in the dark do not grow. In order to test prayer in this situation you would have needed to treat both plants identically and pray for only the one set. A D seems generous in my opinion.

Answer 5

Are you kidding? I hope you are.

You put one set of plants in the sunlight and kept the other in the dark, and you think it proves something the plants in the dark didn't grow? You rigged your own experiment. I'd have given you an F.

The better experiment would have been to treat each set equally except for prayer.

Answer 6

In the classroom of life "Professor Jesus" gives you an A Plus!

It is a Godless left wing atheist homosexual conspiracy and I am sure your "teacher" was on the phone with Hitlery Clinton discussing how best to punish a devout soul such as yourself. You are the lima bean in the light my child for I will pray for you and pray your professors little hybrid is smited by God's mighty Hummer.

Answer 7

Clearly science does. The scientific method requires you change but one thing (prayer/no prayer)--you changed two (prayer, no prayer) (light/no light) and thus demonstrated to your professor a basic ignorance of the scientific method. You were lucky he gave you a D lol.

Answer 8

Silly. Put them both in the same environment and pray for only one plant. That is science on earth.

Answer 9

It was an UNFAIR TEST. Apart from the prayer, ALL other conditions should have been the same. They weren't.

Therefore a D is quite generous, I'd have thought.

Answer 10

this is authentic, i do no longer understand this. Creationism isn't technology, and not to indicate, could in basic terms take in a fragment of the internet site. to no longer insult my faith, yet once you needed to describe creationism in a e book to rival technology it may in basic terms be "Goddidit" and then end of e book. To appropriate that why could we ought to brush off Darwin's concept? Darwin replaced right into a creationist for christ sake. sensible layout ought to be used to rival technology, and is commonly perplexed with creationism. sensible layout isn't creationism in a undeniable experience. this is greater deep down explainations of creationism. Creationism says God made each and every thing, sensible Designs says God made specific issues. Like in accordance to creationism, God made sheep. in accordance to sensible layout, God made the existence cellular that makes up the sheep.