Archive-Discussions

Discussion Commentators-

1-Jacob

2-cwh

3-k. Peters

4-Nate

Note: the heading of a key comment is emboldened and underlined.
Discussion Topic-Can God Be A Legitimate, Scientific Answer To Any Scientific Problem?

1. k. Peters

If God is not a legitimate answer to answer posed by science, it is not science.   If the "scientific" answer is sought assuming there is not God even though the science is best explained by a creator, it is poor science.

2.Jacob

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7isjo0isKXo

A very good explanation of my position towards theistic evolution.

Regarding the discussion topic, God CAN be a legitimate answer to every scientific problem, because he is God, and he is omnipotent, and he can do all. This does not, however mean that Christians cannot accept natural explanations for scientific phenomena. God is very orderly, and very organized, and his creation does follow a certain laws which he has set in place. Science has discovered many of these laws, which allows us to learn more about God's amazing creation.

  cwh (Reply)

Thanks for the video, Jacob. I agree with a lot of what he says, particularly that it is important to build one's Christianity around Jesus Christ, not Genesis. As I'm sure you'll guess, I do have "howevers"... so... However, I think a lot of what he says at the beginning of the video with the list of things we "lose" if we accept evolution is his own personal opinion, and does not apply to a great majority of Evolutionary Creationists. It certainly does not apply to me. He starts his list with "God, engaging in the universe and making it". I absolutely believe that God IS the creator, I just happen to believe that evolution is the tool that He used. He continues to say that God's purpose in creation is to bring us joy. I agree that humanity is the crowning end to God's creation, but I would argue that the Bible teaches that God created for His glory, not really for our joy. It's super-cool, and it does bring me joy, but I don't think our joy is His ultimate purpose in creation. He goes on to list other things that we lose if we do not believe in creation. I agree, many of those things would be lost if I didn't believe in creation. So it's a good thing I DO believe in creation. Admittedly, I see creation on a different time scale than his, but I and millions like me do believe in creation!

3.k. Peters

I appreciate your comment Jacob.  I believe the "scientific laws" are actually God's law.  The 2nd law of thermodynamics was created by God.  This law and many others militate against evolution.  Evolutionary theory makes the assumption that there is no God.   Darwin, who was not trained in science but in economics,  had a bone to pick, (pun intended) with Christianity before he speculated that evolution occurred between species.   There is much scientific evidence that there is a "fixity" of species.  Genetic, physical, behavioral, and other "mechanisms" within a species resist change in the species..  You are right! The creation and the Creator are amazing.

4.cwh

Methodological naturalism is currently how science is performed. This has been true for about the last 200 years and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Scientists should limit the hypotheses they attempt to answer according to what can be detected by physical means. For the most part, this works very well. However, when individuals begin to extrapolate scientific findings to metaphysical truth, there will always be problems involved - this type of thinking leads to the militant atheism of people like Richard Dawkins. There are not many scientists that do this, but they are highly vocal and visible, and this tends to paint all scientists with an "atheistic" brush in the viewpoint of many Christians. As a whole, Christians need to improve their understanding of how science is done. As a whole, scientists need to be more aware of the limitations of the methodological naturalism that they employ. So, to finally get to the question -- In the way science is currently performed, God is not and should not be part of any scientific answer. Science must limit itself to answering questions that have physical explanations. There will always be events and accounts that defy physical explanation, but that is God's realm - not science's.

  Jacob (Reply)

I recently read an article that highlights evolution's demand for the order of this world to come from a completely disorderly chaos. I would like to hear what you think of it, if you can get the book. It is chapter 8 of "Law and Liberty" by Rush Rushdoony. Most of the book is about civil law, but I found chapter 8 very interesting regarding the implications of evolution and it's accompanying philosophy. The book is available on Kindle, otherwise, I'm sure you could get a print copy on amazon.

5.Nate

This site defines science as: "An endeavor dedicated to the accumulation and classification of observable facts, and forming views based on these observable facts." 
We cannot observe God in an observable scientific manner. However, there are times when we can determine that no natural explanation makes sense. In this case I think that God can be part of our view based on what we see.

Share-
Email

 Copyright © 2016-2019 CE-DEBATE, All Rights Reserved

This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now