Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science

[ManOnFi59238829]

Science has no virtue. What kind of Scientists is the world really producing? Tabaco companies had scientist who said that Tabaco was good for you, or at least not harmful. The Government had scientist who said it was harmful. Who do I believe?

Many scientists are false shepherds or work for them. They don’t care what the results are as long as those results produce something that makes money or affirms some passion or view point that people with money want science to affirm.

Creating AI and robots is dangerous. Instead of turning to God, and having families and children, some scientists decide to make their own so they do not have to deal with hardships.
Jesus tells us to pray, on Earth like it is in Heaven. How is it in Heaven? It seems like man knows he can do more, was built or created to do more, and his handicapped. Instead of looking to God and Faith, which is hard, men turn to Science and Technology as the cure.

 

[pom2014]

Science has no virtue.

So all that science that developed health care has no value?
All the science that created enhanced safety measures has no value?
All the science that built better, warmer, stronger homes has no value?
All the science that gives you clean water, keeps you on time for work and staves off famine has no value?

I think anyone from Jesus' time would disagree.

Creating AI and robots is dangerous. Instead of turning to God, and having families and children, some scientists decide to make their own so they do not have to deal with hardships.

Well when you can create children that can be immersed in acid that destroys flesh or work in hundreds of degrees of heat or cold; then you can put away the inorganics. Until then I am thankful God gave us brains to make
these things to help where humans would be killed in an instant.

I am glad we have them and IF they EVER develop a fully realised sentience, I would gladly live among them as kinsman and give them rights as I would ANY sentient being. I would love them as much as I would love any organic
being. THEY are OUR children, organic or inorganic, they would be treated the same.

 

[aspen]

At least the Amish place limits on how much they choose to benefit from science; Christians who complain against science being taught in schools have no limits about consuming the fruit of science.

Meanwhile, as Bill Nye pointed out in his debate with Hamm, we are at risk of falling behind the rest of the world in science education and innovation because of our tendency towards anti-science curriculum in the classroom

 

[Wormwood]

At least the Amish place limits on how much they choose to benefit from science; Christians who complain against science being taught in schools have no limits about consuming the fruit of science.

Meanwhile, as Bill Nye pointed out in his debate with Hamm, we are at risk of falling behind the rest of the world in science education and innovation because of our tendency towards anti-science curriculum in the classroom

Im sure we can manage to build computers and bridges....even if we stop teaching kids that they came from monkeys via billions of years of random processes.

 

[aspen]

Wormwood, I am not sure of that......perhaps it is our monkey nature that allows us to swing from the bridge we need to construct.....

Absurd? I guess....about as absurd as reducing effective science curriculum to monkeys and random processes, I suppose

 

[Wormwood]

I am just trying to understand how theories on origins are essential for modern day science. Can we not explore the inner-workings of the cell, adaptations, mutations, etc. without injecting theories of origins on students? Are these theories crucial for the technology that will keep us ahead of the other nations? I don't think they are. I think there is a bit of bait and switch going on here. To suggest that one must be taught that they evolved from apes if they hope to be an effective doctor, engineer, marine biologist, computer programmer, etc..... or that if someone believes humans were created via a miraculous event by all all-powerful Creator they cant be an effective or productive doctor, engineer, inventor, biologist, etc...is disturbing.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

To suggest that those who do not hold a neo Darwinian view of Biology should not partake of modern conveniences is the very definition of the straw man.

What idiotic nonsense!!

 

[marksman]

Wow....just wow.

I showed you the field data from Majerus' 1988 study of peppered moths, showing that they do indeed rest on tree trunks. You completely ignored the data and now here you are repeating Wells' lie (and you know he's a "Moonie", right?). Unbelievable.

It's this sort of blatant dishonesty from creationism that gives Christianity a black eye, and is a factor in why our faith is in a free fall in the west. Absolutely unbelievable.... :blink:

You wish. Our church was given report on Sunday from a visiting teacher who travels all over the world and he said that people who say that christianity is in free fall are lying. He gave details of the large meetings that they hold in various countries they visit and the thousands that are coming to Christ for the first time.

 

[aspen]

I am just trying to understand how theories on origins are essential for modern day science. Can we not explore the inner-workings of the cell, adaptations, mutations, etc. without injecting theories of origins on students? Are these theories crucial for the technology that will keep us ahead of the other nations? I don't think they are. I think there is a bit of bait and switch going on here. To suggest that one must be taught that they evolved from apes if they hope to be an effective doctor, engineer, marine biologist, computer programmer, etc..... or that if someone believes humans were created via a miraculous event by all all-powerful Creator they cant be an effective or productive doctor, engineer, inventor, biologist, etc...is disturbing.

Actually, on one hand, the origin of humans is a very small part of science curriculum in schools; on the other hand, it is foundational because it explains how interconnected life is. It is impossible to understand biology without understanding evolution because it is the foundation and mechanism of life. Even if you exclude human origins, how are you going to explain the life without evolution? Unless you decide to stop all discussion and study by turning to the idea that God created it?

How are you going to interpret the relationship between the different classifications of animals and plants if you ignore the obvious connections? It would be like trying to explain geology without talking about plate tectonics or continental drift. In fact, how can you expect to teach anything about geology without recognizing the true age of the Earth?

This goes so far beyond human origins.


Really juggernaut?

According to your worldview, should a nonChristian enjoy the benefits of salvation? Or is that just idiotic nonsense too?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Aspen,

It does not follow (non sequitur), your logic that is. It's horrible.

Your analogy fails. Let's see if we can fix it.
You, river and other misinformed naturalists claim that all technology, all discoveries are based on the philosophy of Darwinian processes and not the result of a rigorous scientific method. This is daft.
This is Darwinian reductionism. It amazes me that self-professed Christians would embrace this paradigm. However, if you are claiming reductionism, then you need to follow it to it's logical conclusion and admit that Christianity itself is nothing more than a natural result of natural selection. There was simply a survival benefit to belief. Now, if you deny this then your theory fails at every level and every discovery, every idea, every construct needs to be judged on its own merits and not seen through the veiled glasses of Darwin. I can't fix stupid, but I can lead it in the right direction.

 

[Wormwood]

Actually, on one hand, the origin of humans is a very small part of science curriculum in schools; on the other hand, it is foundational because it explains how interconnected life is. It is impossible to understand biology without understanding evolution because it is the foundation and mechanism of life. Even if you exclude human origins, how are you going to explain the life without evolution? Unless you decide to stop all discussion and study by turning to the idea that God created it?

One does not need to postulate about the formation of life to understand biology and how cells function today. The idea that life can only be "interconnected" via evolution is nonsense. A common designer could also explain such connections. Either way, one does not need to believe we came from apes to understand how cells function today. Darwinian evolution is not the foundation of the mechanism of life. One can understand nucleotides, genetic information, DNA, RNA, mutations, etc. without being taught their great, great, great, great, great, great, grandpa had a tail and was swinging in trees. You can understand life by looking at it in a microscope. In fact, if I recall, that is science: the systematic study of the observable world through observation and experiment. We can do that without monkeying around (pardon the pun).

Belief in creation does not "stop all discussion and study." Such an idea is lunacy. I know a microbiologist who works in a lab every day and believe in the Genesis account of creation. It did not prevent him from nearly getting a PhD in the field (he stopped short of the dissertation because he wanted to work in a lab, not supervise a lab). What you fail to understand is that secular naturalism has successfully duped our culture into thinking that only the naturalist can be scientific and that science is based in religious naturalism. This is false. Science originated from Christian thought, not naturalistic humanism.

How are you going to interpret the relationship between the different classifications of animals and plants if you ignore the obvious connections? It would be like trying to explain geology without talking about plate tectonics or continental drift. In fact, how can you expect to teach anything about geology without recognizing the true age of the Earth?

A person has to believe that a human came from a monkey in order to explain or understand their immune system? Again, one can see relationships from a common designer, not just a common ancestor. This has nothing to do with the age of the earth. There are plenty of creationists that believe in an old earth. The point here is that technology can move forward without teaching kids they came from an amoeba hundreds of millions of years ago.

 

[River Jordan]

Im sure we can manage to build computers and bridges....even if we stop teaching kids that they came from monkeys via billions of years of random processes.

Now why would anyone ever get the impression that Christians have a problem with science? It sure is a mystery.

You wish.

No wishing required. I showed you the data and showed you how your Moonie buddy J. Wells was lying about it. If you can't even admit that, then you might have a pride issue.

Our church was given report on Sunday from a visiting teacher who travels all over the world and he said that people who say that christianity is in free fall are lying. He gave details of the large meetings that they hold in various countries they visit and the thousands that are coming to Christ for the first time.

Christianity is in serious decline in the US and Europe. Right now, there are more "nones" in the US than either Catholics or mainline Protestants.

You, river and other misinformed naturalists claim that all technology, all discoveries are based on the philosophy of Darwinian processes

Who said that? Where? I know you won't be able to show where anyone here has said that, but what's really sad is that you will never admit it either.

Either way, one does not need to believe we came from apes to understand how cells function today.

Yes you do. Evolutionary relationships and common ancestry are the very foundation of the field of comparative genomics, which is how we figure out the functions of genetic sequences. Without that framework, we'd be grasping at straws trying to figure out what they do.

Darwinian evolution is not the foundation of the mechanism of life. One can understand nucleotides, genetic information, DNA, RNA, mutations, etc. without being taught their great, great, great, great, great, great, grandpa had a tail and was swinging in trees.

Wrong, see above.

 

[Wormwood]

Now why would anyone ever get the impression that Christians have a problem with science? It sure is a mystery.

Don't you claim to be a Christian? :blink:

Yes you do. Evolutionary relationships and common ancestry are the very foundation of the field of comparative genomics, which is how we figure out the functions of genetic sequences. Without that framework, we'd be grasping at straws trying to figure out what they do.

yeah, you're right. My friend who works in a lab in this very field doesn't know what he's talking about. He should be fired for his view on creation because clearly it impedes his work.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

This is a comment you made to me months ago when discussing my distrust of some aspects pertaining to "settled science."

"You use computers don't you?"

 

[River Jordan]

Don't you claim to be a Christian?

Uh....yeah. Not sure why you had to ask that.

yeah, you're right. My friend who works in a lab in this very field doesn't know what he's talking about. He should be fired for his view on creation because clearly it impedes his work.

Is he a bioinformatician?

This is a comment you made to me months ago when discussing my distrust of some aspects pertaining to "settled science."

"You use computers don't you?"

And is that the same thing as "You claim that all technology, all discoveries are based on the philosophy of Darwinian processes"?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

It's the same fallacious logic.

 

[River Jordan]

No it's not. You really don't understand how...

"Computers are the product of settled science"

...is different than...

"All technology is based on Darwinism"?

Really? :blink:

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

I won't waste my time explaining what you already know but want to act like an airhead.

 

[Wormwood]

Uh....yeah. Not sure why you had to ask that.

You said people get the impression that Christians have a problem with science as if you are on the outside looking in. So, because you are a Christian, which group would you say doesnt have a problem with science (since obviously you dont believe you have a problem with it)? From our conversations thus far, I would conclude your position is:

1) Christians that believe the OT and NT are fact-based and the literature is based on actual events in history are anti-reason & science: i.e. creation account; commands claimed to be from God are, in fact, from God; miraculous plagues, raising the dead, the resurrection of Jesus, etc.

2) Christians that believe the literature throughout the Bible is primarily parabolic and metaphorical...there are no miracles are rational, but aren't properly Christian.

3) Christians that believe the OT is predominately filled with literary devices and the commands for war from God, creation of man and woman, and so forth are not to be understood historically, however, the NT accounts of the miracles of the Apostles and the resurrection of Jesus are fact-laden and historical. These are the Christians that are both Christian and somehow also qualify as lovers of science.

Is that about right? I think the issue I am having here is that you feel Christians who hold to the Scriptures as primarily fact-based are consequently non-rational and anti-science. You believe the creation account is simply communicating literary ideas and is not meant to be taken as fact-based. However, when you flip to the NT, you claim that the resurrection really happened and Jesus ascended to heaven. For someone who claims to be a lover of science and reason, you seem to be cherry-picking here. Apparently, we know scientifically that evolution is a fact and that man came from single-cell organisms. To argue the contrary is to be anti-science, believe in a god-of-the-gaps and to make a fool of one's self before the scientific community. However, you espouse a virgin birth, miracles, spiritual forces, the resurrection of the dead and the ascension of Jesus into the heavens. How does this not make you, likewise, anti-science and non-rationale? Scientifically speaking, dead cells do not come back to life. Scientifically speaking, children cannot be born without male sperm. Scientifically speaking, prayers dont cure diseases and one cannot restore vision by touching a persons eyes.

I just find it amazing that you can be so mean-spirited and critical to those "Christians" out there that are so contrary to reason and science in Genesis, while you maintain similar foolish and anti-rationale views yourself, just in other parts of the Bible. Apparently your belief in miracles and resurrections are not the stuff of fairy tales and hocus pocus, but believing the OT is fact-laden is? Pretty much every scientist would laugh you out of the room if you told them you believe a person can die on a cross and three days later walk out of a grave. They would scoff at you for believing Paul's shadow could heal diseases. That would mock at the idea of spirits, angels and demons. Yet, its the creation account that makes us look foolish and unscientific? I beg to differ. Bill Nye thinks the NT is just as silly as the OT. You act like these scientists are on your team, when they laugh at your views just as much as they laugh at the creationist. I dont see how you think one is more sophisticated and scientific than the other.

Give me a break. I dont agree with a lot of Christians out there and their views on Genesis and other biblical texts. But I dont pit myself against them and claim that they are fools who oppose reason and are a laughing stock to the scientific community. We all believe in the unscientific and miraculous (at least I believe this is essential for a legitimate Christian). But apparently you feel that its okay to mock and deride those who see the miraculous extending back into Genesis 1-2, while you can somehow maintain scientific integrity by claiming miracles in the Gospels. I find this to be a ridiculous double-standard.

 

[StanJ]

I won't waste my time explaining what you already know but want to act like an airhead.

I agree. It would be an exercise in futility, which is why she is on my ignore list.