Heresy within Christianity

[DNB]

No. Science cannot consider the validity of miracles and does not claim to have that ability. It is limited by its very methodology to the physical universe.

Indeed, and this is its limitation, ...but also naiveté. There exists a spiritual realm which cannot be denied, or excluded from the equation. So, as I said, it is in the comprehension of the grounds for the miracles that substantiates there veracity. So yes, all this is a pointless endeavour, without the predication that God exists.

Now, the above is true on one hand, but on the other hand, the universe is a miracle, therefore, the supernatural is not outside the realm of science.

 

[DNB]

The problem is that when the church itself follows the lead of the universities teaching liberalism and attacking the Bible, it is alienating the young people they are trying to attract. In my Presbyterian church when I was living in Auckland, the plea was "Why aren't we attracting the young people?" Well, my answer is that the church is not teaching young people how to answer the atheistic teaching that questions the Bible. The church should be teaching its young people apologetics, so they can have a Biblical answer to the corrupted, liberal teaching that they are exposed to when they go to high school and university.

The sad thing is that too many churches are teaching the same thing that the liberal universities and seminaries are teaching. It is no wonder that 20-25 year olds are departing from the churches in droves, even though they have Christian parents and were brought up through the churches' Sunday schools. What they have observed is that their church leaders are siding with atheistic teaching, and because they don't believe the Bible any more, why should they themselves bother. If the Bible is not the authority of their church, why continue? They might as well adopt the attitude that anything goes, and get out of it and just enjoy life.

Yes, agreed, ...good point, they should be taught apologetics, indeed!

 

[Yehren]

No. Science cannot consider the validity of miracles and does not claim to have that ability. It is limited by its very methodology to the physical universe.

Indeed, and this is its limitation, ...but also naiveté.

No. This is not a denial. It's merely a recognition that science can't do this. You might as well say that plumbing is naive, because it can't tell you anything about miracles. Neither science nor plumbing can recognized miracles. But scientists and plumbers can. If this puzzles you, we've gotten to the problem.

There exists a spiritual realm which cannot be denied, or excluded from the equation.

But a plumber can work on your drains without considering the demons of blockage. Science is like that, too. God made it like that. This is why people of all faiths, and even of no faith at all, can do science.

Now, the above is true on one hand, but on the other hand, the universe is a miracle, therefore, the supernatural is not outside the realm of science.

It is absolutely out of the reach of science, which can only test the physical world, not the supernatural.

 

[Paul Christensen]

No. Science cannot consider the validity of miracles and does not claim to have that ability. It is limited by its very methodology to the physical universe.

No. This is not a denial. It's merely a recognition that science can't do this. You might as well say that plumbing is naive, because it can't tell you anything about miracles. Neither science nor plumbing can recognized miracles. But scientists and plumbers can. If this puzzles you, we've gotten to the problem.

But a plumber can work on your drains without considering the demons of blockage. Science is like that, too. God made it like that. This is why people of all faiths, and even of no faith at all, can do science.

It is absolutely out of the reach of science, which can only test the physical world, not the supernatural.

Correct. There are two branches of science: 1. Operational science, which is how the universe works. This can be accomplished by observation and laboratory experiments. 2. Historical science, such as forensic science, archaeology, historical accounts, etc. This is based on historical evidence from photographs, examination of ancient ruins and inscriptions, eye-witness histories. For example, Luke's gospel is historical evidence because he interviewed many eye-witnesses to the events surrounding the ministry of Jesus, His death and resurrection, and the first days of the early church. His account of Paul's ministry is his own eye-witness testimony of it.

Evolution fits neither into operational or historical science, because there have been no human observation of the events, and no scientific experiments performed in relation to them. But Biblical creation is historical science, because there was one Eye-witness to the events and He told Moses what really happened.

But miracles cannot fit into operational science, because we don't know how miracles happen, and there are not science experiments that can show it either. When we apply historical science we can show through eye-witness and personal testimony, along with medical records showing the before and after (in the case of healing), that the miracle did happen, but how it happened is beyond either operational or historical science.

So, we have to take the word of the Holy Spirit speaking through the authors of the Bible that the miracles in the Bible actually happened, and we have to take the word of subsequent eye-witnesses and personal testimonies that miracles have continued through church history.

 

[Yehren]

This is because any scientific research has to be reviewed, evaluated by peers who dogmatically support evolution, and any research that does not agree with it is usually heavily redacted or rejected.

No, that excuse won't fly. There are many, many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. who are scientists and men of faith. That old dodge isn't going to work, particularly with genetics, as one of the greatest living geneticists (Francis Collins) is a devout evangelical Christian.

From your link:
"There are three types of experiments in the world. The first type distinguishes between two competing hypotheses, regardless of which way the experiment turns out. For example, if you hypothesize A, but the experiment demonstrates B, you’ve still learned something. This is the best and rarest type of experiment."

I suspect he read (and didn't quite get) this:

"There are basically three types of experiments proposed by scientists.


Type 1 experiments are the most powerful. Type 1 experimental outcomes include a possible negative outcome that would falsify, or refute, the working hypothesis. It is one or the other.


Type 2 experiments are very common, but lack punch. A positive result in a type 2 experiment is consistent with the working hypothesis, but the negative or null result does not address the validity of the hypothesis because there are many explanations for the negative result. These call for extrapolation and semantics.


Type 3 experiments are those experiments whose results may be consistent with the hypothesis, but are useless because regardless of the outcome, the findings are also consistent with other models. In other words, every result isn’t informative."

I've spent a lifetime in science, and too many times, young people in science have told me of their crises of faith caused by being told that a literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 was the only Christian interpretation. When they learned that it couldn't possibly be so, their whole structure of belief was shaken. This is the real damage that YE doctrines do.

 

[Paul Christensen]

No, that excuse won't fly. There are many, many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. who are scientists and men of faith. That old dodge isn't going to work, particularly with genetics, as one of the greatest living geneticists (Francis Collins) is a devout evangelical Christian.

From your link:
"There are three types of experiments in the world. The first type distinguishes between two competing hypotheses, regardless of which way the experiment turns out. For example, if you hypothesize A, but the experiment demonstrates B, you’ve still learned something. This is the best and rarest type of experiment."

I suspect he read (and didn't quite get) this:

"There are basically three types of experiments proposed by scientists.


Type 1 experiments are the most powerful. Type 1 experimental outcomes include a possible negative outcome that would falsify, or refute, the working hypothesis. It is one or the other.


Type 2 experiments are very common, but lack punch. A positive result in a type 2 experiment is consistent with the working hypothesis, but the negative or null result does not address the validity of the hypothesis because there are many explanations for the negative result. These call for extrapolation and semantics.


Type 3 experiments are those experiments whose results may be consistent with the hypothesis, but are useless because regardless of the outcome, the findings are also consistent with other models. In other words, every result isn’t informative."

I've spent a lifetime in science, and too many times, young people in science have told me of their crises of faith caused by being told that a literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 was the only Christian interpretation. When they learned that it couldn't possibly be so, their whole structure of belief was shaken. This is the real damage that YE doctrines do.

This is because the church has failed to teach the young people about why Genesis 1 is true, with creation scientists providing substantive evidence from geology and genetics to offset the influentual guesswork that these young people have been brainwashed with the science teaching in their elementary and high schools. I have heard of teachers and scientists being fired from their jobs because they have questioned evolution and held to creation science.

 

[Yehren]

his is all very interesting...and I don't disagree. Nor do I disagree with the young earth beliefs. But both positions violate the greater context of God.

One does. But the other simply has nothing to say about the supernatural whatever, while conceding the possibility that it might exist. So Christians can do science, just like anyone else.

Thus, disagreement is ever ongoing.

Rarely among people who actually work in the sciences. Mostly by laymen who don't see the way it works.

For the most part, science violates the greater context of God by limiting evidence to things of this world.

No. It can only access physical evidence. But (for example) a scientist who is a Thomist Christian would readily admit there is evidence for God, even if there is no way science can use it.

Which is not the violation of the common biblical interpretation, which is also limited and therefore out of context.

Much as it would be if you asked a plumber to tune your automobile. He might be able to do it, but not because he was a plumber.

The greater context of God is not limited, but infinite; wherein worldly scientific evidence or even so called biblical evidence amounts to little more than the thoughts of men regarding both. Both lower context approaches do not reach the higher context level of God in order to have complete understanding. Neither is completely correct nor incorrect. On the contrary, all truth comes via the Holy Spirit. The good news here, is that all truth and a complete understanding on these and all matters, is promised.

Yes, well said. As many scientists have pointed out, it's a misuse of the method, to try to draw theological or moral lessons from science. Nevertheless, it is possible to apprehend both approaches at once. It happens to me from time to time when I'm out alone in nature. Kind of an epiphany, where it all comes together in what is for me, an emotional moment.

 

[Yehren]

Correct. There are two branches of science: 1. Operational science, which is how the universe works. This can be accomplished by observation and laboratory experiments. 2. Historical science, such as forensic science, archaeology, historical accounts, etc.

Forensics is a very lab-oriented science, requiring investigation and observation of results. So is evolutionary science, geology, etc. Archaeology has increasingly become an experimental science as well. Would you like to hear about some ways this happens?

Evolution fits neither into operational or historical science,

It is both because evolution and even speciation is a directly observed phenomenon, and because it requires laboratory investigations in genetics, chemistry, physics, and so on. Would you like to learn of some of the experimental work that has confirmed evolution?

God requires faith. Evolution, like other natural phenomena, requires evidence. Let me know if you'd like to learn about some of that.

 

[Yehren]

This is because the church has failed to teach the young people about why Genesis 1 is true,

It is true. It's just not what YE creationists have re-interpreted it to be.

with creation scientists providing substantive evidence from geology and genetics to offset the influentual guesswork that these young people have been brainwashed with the science teaching in their elementary and high schools.

You've vastly overestimated the amount of evolution being taught in public schools.

I have heard of teachers and scientists being fired from their jobs because they have questioned evolution and held to creation science.

My youngest daughter had a creationist science teacher, working in a district where the science coordinator was a collaborator with Kenneth Miller. She kept her job. And she even brought in a creationist PhD who lectured the class on how "the woodpecker" refuted evolution. My daughter is a very bright kid. Her first question: "What woodpecker? There are all kinds of them, and none of them have all the features you were talking about."

The PhD ended by saying he was chemist, not an ornithologist, and he wasn't sure about her questions. Teacher was not pleased. But she wasn't fired, although she was told she couldn't teach from a religious book in a public classroom.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Forensics is a very lab-oriented science, requiring investigation and observation of results. So is evolutionary science, geology, etc. Archaeology has increasingly become an experimental science as well. Would you like to hear about some ways this happens?



It is both because evolution and even speciation is a directly observed phenomenon, and because it requires laboratory investigations in genetics, chemistry, physics, and so on. Would you like to learn of some of the experimental work that has confirmed evolution?

God requires faith. Evolution, like other natural phenomena, requires evidence. Let me know if you'd like to learn about some of that.

My world view involves a real and living God who is a talking God who has given us a historical record of how he created the universe and our world. I chose to take His word than the word of man, especially those of atheists who dogmatically leave God out of their theories.

Reading any history, whether church or secular, we have to take the historian's word for it, because we can't go back and view the events for ourselves. Often we don't trawl through the reference and citations that are usually in the footnotes or end notes because we just believe (by faith) that what they are giving is a true history of the events. Even when we watch the evening news, we have to take their word for it, but what we may not know is that the structure and programming of the news plus the associated comments from "experts" is put together to suit the purpose of the news provider so we cannot know whether we are getting the authentic news, or contrived news. There are sites that promulgate false news, which can be confusing to those who don't know the difference. Even our newspapers report information depending on whether they support a particular political party. So if a US newspaper supports the Democrats, you are going to get news and editorial comment that is skewed toward the Democrat view at the expense of the Republican view. This is a fact of life. The point is that when we read a history, view the TV news, or read a newspaper, we use "faith" to accept that what we are getting are the true facts.

So what is the difference faithwise between accepting what our TV news tells us and what God says to us in the Bible? None.

So, when I come to choose between what God is telling me through the Bible and what man tells me of his atheistic theories, then because my world view involves the living God of the Bible, I am going to choose His word over the words of the atheists and those men who side with them.

 

[Yehren]

My world view involves a real and living God who is a talking God who has given us a historical record of how he created the universe and our world. I chose to take His word than the word of man, especially those of atheists who dogmatically leave God out of their theories.

Darwin himself thought that God just created the first living things. You've been badly misled about the supposed "atheists" who founded the scientific method. Most of them were Christians or Muslims.

And yes, you need faith to accept God. Evolution requires evidence. Which we see daily. It's going on all the time. We even see new species evolve now and then. Most creationists confuse the observed phenomenon of evolution with agencies of evolution like natural selection, or consequences of evolution, like common descent.

 

[Paul Christensen]

It is true. It's just not what YE creationists have re-interpreted it to be.



You've vastly overestimated the amount of evolution being taught in public schools.



My youngest daughter had a creationist science teacher, working in a district where the science coordinator was a collaborator with Kenneth Miller. She kept her job. And she even brought in a creationist PhD who lectured the class on how "the woodpecker" refuted evolution. My daughter is a very bright kid. Her first question: "What woodpecker? There are all kinds of them, and none of them have all the features you were talking about."

The PhD ended by saying he was chemist, not an ornithologist, and he wasn't sure about her questions. Teacher was not pleased. But she wasn't fired, although she was told she couldn't teach from a religious book in a public classroom.

We don't have that in our New Zealand schools. Science teaching is well-founded in the evolution side and creation science is suppressed. Most high schools in New Zealand just won't hire a creation science teacher. The set curriculum is evolution-based, and a science teacher would be fired if he didn't teach the set curriculum. We have our high school qualifications based mainly on internal assessment which is totally linked to the set curriculum. This means that a student who believed in creation science and gave his or her answers on that basis, would be marked down and possibly even given a failing grade!

 

[prism]

Replacing the command to “love your neighbor” with “telling your neighbor about salvation”

I basically agree with your list in the OP, but this one? Ehh, not so fast.
The greatest love we can express to our neighbor is about the love of God to mankind in redeeming us from sin through the sacrifice of His Son. Would to God that message was proclaimed and taught more instead of smiling while we help only to see them drift off into everlasting destruction.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Darwin himself thought that God just created the first living things. You've been badly misled about the supposed "atheists" who founded the scientific method. Most of them were Christians or Muslims.

And yes, you need faith to accept God. Evolution requires evidence. Which we see daily. It's going on all the time. We even see new species evolve now and then. Most creationists confuse the observed phenomenon of evolution with agencies of evolution like natural selection, or consequences of evolution, like common descent.

The fact is that Darwin's research is flawed. Out of all the species discovered around the world to date, Darwin knew of only 15% of them. Therefore his statistical population was not sufficient for his theory to be reliable, and in fact, many scientists opposed him at the time.

Natural selection is not evolution. Evolution requires code to be added to the genetic structure of an organism for it to transform into a higher organism. The fact is that the changes of the type of an organism such as the breed of dogs is because information is deleted from the genetic code. for example, the genetic code that causes a dog to be long haired, is deleted when two dogs with short hair genetic breed, because they can only produce short hair dogs, so for them, the long hair gene is lost to them. The only way two short hair dogs can breed a long hair dog is for either of them to have a long hair gene in them. Therefore a SL gene dog mating with a S dog could produce either a short hair or long hair dog depending on which gene is dominant. But if the dog that is produce has just a S gene, and mates with another dog with just an S gene, they cannot produce a dog with a L gene because there is no L gene to pass on.

But for a fish to evolve into a dog, which evolutionists say is what happened, then gene information has to be added to the fish to transform it from a F (shark, flounder, dolphin, etc,) organism to a D (small, large, short hair, long hair, etc.) organism. This is impossible through the natural genetic transfer. For the fish to transform into a dog the dog would have to have a F gene in it and they would have to mate in some way to transfer the genetic code from one to the other. Even someone with half a brain can see that is totally ridiculous!

Also, what we don't see any evidence of is half fish half dogs in the fossil record. But we see fully formed fossil fish and fully formed fossil dogs. If the fossil records are millions of year old, then it would be obvious that the basic fish and dog has not evolved at all from one to the other in all that time!

So, when the available fossil evidence is examined, it takes a lot less faith to believe that God created the world the way He said, along with all the fish, crustaceans and animals after their own kinds and that the fossil records in the Grand Canyon rock layers are the result of a total world-wide flood and not millions of years old, and that cave drawings of dinosaurs by humans who observed them showing that they were not on earth millions of years ago - than the amount of faith to believe the evolution fairy story that is not consistent with the available scientific evidence.

 

[Yehren]

The fact is that Darwin's research is flawed.

He documented his case in numbing detail. He wasn't right about everything, but the four points of his theory remain verified to this day. And more importantly, numerous predictions from his theory have been verified. Would you like to learn about some of them.

Out of all the species discovered around the world to date, Darwin knew of only 15% of them.

Seeing as 95% of all internet statistics are just made up, would you mind showing us the evidence for your claim?

Therefore his statistical population was not sufficient for his theory to be reliable,

I would thinking 15% of over 8 million species would be a pretty good sample. One can draw valid statistical inferences from much smaller samples. Would you like me to show you why?

and in fact, many scientists opposed him at the time.

As time went on, and evidence came in, fewer and fewer. The last world-class biologist who opposed evolution (Agassiz) died around 1900.

Natural selection is not evolution.

As I said, it's an agency of evolution. Evolution is "descent with modification" (Darwin's term) or more precisely "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Evolution requires code to be added to the genetic structure of an organism

No. All organisms already have genetic code. It merely requires a change in the code. That's called "mutation."

for it to transform into a higher organism.

No. Look at the definitions again. "Higher" or "lower" aren't part of evolutionary theory.

The fact is that the changes of the type of an organism such as the breed of dogs is because information is deleted from the genetic code.

Or added. New mutations occur regularly and change the population genome. And this wasn't just dogs. Genetic analysis shows wolves have evolved as much from the ancient common ancestor as dogs have.

for example, the genetic code that causes a dog to be long haired, is deleted when two dogs with short hair genetic breed, because they can only produce short hair dogs,

That's not always true. Short hair is not always recessive. But if the two dogs were homozygous for short hair, then there was never a long hair gene to be deleted.

But for a fish to evolve into a dog,

Wouldn't happen. Dogs evolved from other mammals, not fish.

Also, what we don't see any evidence of is half fish half dogs in the fossil record.

See above. We do see half dog/half bear mammals in the fossil record because canids and ursids did evolve from a common ancestor. Would you like to learn how we know?

But we see fully formed fossil fish and fully formed fossil dogs.

All transitional forms are fully formed. Why wouldn't they be? A transitional between dogs and bears is still a fully-formed animal.

If the fossil records are millions of year old, then it would be obvious that the basic fish and dog has not evolved at all from one to the other in all that time!

Right. Dogs didn't evolve from fish; they evolved from other mammals.

So, when the available fossil evidence is examined, it takes a lot less faith to believe that God created the world the way He said,

He did create it the way He said. He just didn't create it the way YE creationists say.

along with all the fish, crustaceans and animals after their own kinds and that the fossil records in the Grand Canyon rock layers are the result of a total world-wide flood and not millions of years old

If so, it's hard to explain how entire desert ecosystems and forests had time to develop and get buried in the "flood year." How do you think that happened?

and that cave drawings of dinosaurs by humans who observed them

So far, no one has been able to show us one of those.

The difference between creationist fairy stories and evolution is evidence. Show us.

 

[Yehren]

We don't have that in our New Zealand schools. Science teaching is well-founded in the evolution side and creation science is suppressed. Most high schools in New Zealand just won't hire a creation science teacher. The set curriculum is evolution-based, and a science teacher would be fired if he didn't teach the set curriculum.

Yes, schools aren't really good about teachers making up their own curricula.

Even in America, YE creationism is dying. As evidence accumulates, it gets harder and harder to sell "creation science."

 

[Paul Christensen]

Yes, schools aren't really good about teachers making up their own curricula.

Even in America, YE creationism is dying. As evidence accumulates, it gets harder and harder to sell "creation science."

As I said before, it doesn't matter how much logic and evidence I produce, you will still argue against it, because you are dogmatically holding your view and will defend it to the max. That's understandable.

Darwin did not know about the animals in Australia or New Zealand or in any other areas of the world not accessible to Europeans, such as China and Japan. It is also not certain whether he did any studies in North America, although we do know he did much study in the Galapagos Islands.

 

[DNB]

No. Science cannot consider the validity of miracles and does not claim to have that ability. It is limited by its very methodology to the physical universe.
No. This is not a denial. It's merely a recognition that science can't do this. You might as well say that plumbing is naive, because it can't tell you anything about miracles. Neither science nor plumbing can recognized miracles. But scientists and plumbers can. If this puzzles you, we've gotten to the problem.
But a plumber can work on your drains without considering the demons of blockage. Science is like that, too. God made it like that. This is why people of all faiths, and even of no faith at all, can do science.
It is absolutely out of the reach of science, which can only test the physical world, not the supernatural.

Yes, I understand your point. I agree science can only assess the tangible, or that that can be measured and quantified. And this is its nature, to analyse that which is in the physical realm, matter, space and time.
I was just going a step further, to a more profound level, by alluding to God's evidential exposure of Himself. Man is without excuse because the visible aspects of creation, testify to the invisible qualities of God, right? That's all, i was probably deviating from your objective, but just attempting to add a bit of profundity to the concept.
Since, no scientist can explain our origins with certitude, or the miracle of life and the universe, this enigma, testified to by science, declares the transcendent Creator. Again, just getting philosophical about it, by underscoring Paul's sentiments about the inexcusable denial of God's existence, via the witness of the physical realm (science).

 

[ScottA]

One does. But the other simply has nothing to say about the supernatural whatever, while conceding the possibility that it might exist. So Christians can do science, just like anyone else.



Rarely among people who actually work in the sciences. Mostly by laymen who don't see the way it works.



No. It can only access physical evidence. But (for example) a scientist who is a Thomist Christian would readily admit there is evidence for God, even if there is no way science can use it.



Much as it would be if you asked a plumber to tune your automobile. He might be able to do it, but not because he was a plumber.



Yes, well said. As many scientists have pointed out, it's a misuse of the method, to try to draw theological or moral lessons from science. Nevertheless, it is possible to apprehend both approaches at once. It happens to me from time to time when I'm out alone in nature. Kind of an epiphany, where it all comes together in what is for me, an emotional moment.

In order to understand the greater context of truth in God, both science and scripture must be considered valid...but not by tolerance, but rather by observation. The greater context exists where both simultaneously are manifest in all that is both good and evil. The one tree produces its fruit, as does the other. But the trees are not science and scripture, hence the rub. They are rather belief and unbelief.

How then is the saying true, that "every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit?" It is true, "by their fruits." Which neither by science nor by word, nor by men, can such be defined, but by the Spirit only.

 

[Stumpmaster]

2. I believe the Bible - I am in the process of being saved and my salvation hinges on Christ, not Adam and Eve

It seems to me, aspen, you need to examine yourself to see if you really are a Bible believer, because for evolution to be true, whether Theistic Evolution or Darwinian or any other category, then millions of years of mutations and death is required BEFORE the first man arrived on the scene, whose sin the Bible tells us, resulted in death entering into the world. Quite a conundrum for those who claim to be Bible believers whilst also accepting evolutionist theories.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Also, to consider, when the Bible tells us death is an enemy to God, and that the devil had the power of death, is it logical God would use millions of years of death as part of a plan to create the human race and then stipulate that death will be the punishment we are cursed with as a race in general for being disobedient to Him?

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Seriously aspen, you cannot hold to evolutionist theories and call yourself a Bible believer.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.