Science/Faith And origins Of Life!

[David Lamb]

has science proved yet where/how life on earth started, and just how man developed intelligence/self awareness?

Scientists (and others too) have to make assumptions when it comes to such questions. There is even an assumption in the OP - it assumes that man did "develop intelligence/self awareness". There is another one, or at least a possible one - that all scientists believe in evolution. They don't!

Some scientists believe that God created the universe, and their beliefs about the origin and development of life will be based on this.

Some (perhaps most?) scientists believe in the Theory of Evolution, and their views of the origin and development of life will be based on that.

Neither viewpoint can be proved "scientifically", in the way that scientists can prove that (for example) water consists of hydrogen and oxygen, or that like magnetic poles repel, unlike poles attract. So evolution is, and always will be, a theory.

 

[convicted1]

The discovery of Kepler-22b, which is 600 light-years away from Earth, brings scientists one step closer to finding a planet that could possibly harbor life.

Good!! Now, let's load up all of capital hill, and send them there for the duration!! :thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

Life outside of God making it is baloney. In Genesis, God took the dust of the earth, and formed it into man(in His and His Son's image), and then breathed into this form, and Adam became a living soul. Much the same way now. The union of sperm-egg gives us an zygote. The zygote then forms into a blastocyst, and then embryo, fetus, and then newborn baby. All this is by the work of God.


Anything other than this is complete conjecture, and the "life on other planets" is not spoken of in the bible......so I stay away from that...

 

[DHK]

DHK, there is much "knowledge" in the domain of science which is not "directly" observed, that does not necessarily relegate that science to being wrong or incorrect. In fact, one cannot PROVE even the logical foundations of mathematics. This goes also for our faith in God, one cannot PROVE the existence of God but yet we as believers count it an absolute truth.

There are many disciplines, but when speaking technically of "science," per se, it is knowledge gained by observation and then classified accordingly. Without observation (aided or unaided by the technology of man) there cannot be science.

Of course one cannot prove the existence of God. That is the whole point. We accept Him by faith. The same is true of the evolutionist. He accepts the "big bang," and any other theories of the origin of the universe by faith. He has put them outside the realm of the observable and into the realm of the metaphysical. His beliefs become that of faith. Evolution, for the most part, must be accepted by faith. It cannot be observed.

We discover the laws of God, even as Newton discovered the law of gravity.
Maybe someday He will allow you to discover the "Laws that govern the logical foundations of our mathematics."

 

[quantumfaith]

There are many disciplines, but when speaking technically of "science," per se, it is knowledge gained by observation and then classified accordingly. Without observation (aided or unaided by the technology of man) there cannot be science.

Of course one cannot prove the existence of God. That is the whole point. We accept Him by faith. The same is true of the evolutionist. He accepts the "big bang," and any other theories of the origin of the universe by faith. He has put them outside the realm of the observable and into the realm of the metaphysical. His beliefs become that of faith. Evolution, for the most part, must be accepted by faith. It cannot be observed.

We discover the laws of God, even as Newton discovered the law of gravity.
Maybe someday He will allow you to discover the "Laws that govern the logical foundations of our mathematics."

"God invented the whole numbers, all else is the invention of man".

As per evolution, recall Darwin himself did not propose to suggest the "origin of life"

‘Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

It is primarily those that followed him who sought to emphasize life being the sole result of nothing more than natural processes.

 

[Aaron]

That's not true. He first rejected Genesis, then set about to look for an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

 

[Crabtownboy]

That's not true. He first rejected Genesis, then set about to look for an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

Interesting comment ... can you give me a link to this information?

 

[Aaron]

Interesting comment ... can you give me a link to this information?

I read it in one of Michael Denton's books years ago.

 

[Aaron]

quantum, you've asserted that you do not believe that Adam was created on the 6th day through a special act of creation. You asserted that you believe Adam arrived naturalistically. In other words, he (or they) were born.

Would like to hear your theories concerning Adam's parents.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I read it in one of Michael Denton's books years ago.

It sounds more like an opinion to me than a fact. It may be true. It may not be true. I'd like to pin it down. I say this as evolutionary theory makes no speculation about the presence or absence of God.

Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

I do remember being told that Lew Wallace began writing the classic book, "Ben Hur" to prove Christ was false, but surprise, surprise as he studied and wrote about Christ he came to repent and became a Christian. I have not found a definitive link to prove or disprove this.

 

[Aaron]

Of course one cannot prove the existence of God.

This is not true.

If you want to say that one cannot use what we call "the scientific method" to prove the existence of God, you may be correct, because that requires a control. You must have a enivronment where God is, and then one where God is not, and that is impossible.

Infallible proofs of God's eternal power and godhead are all around us. Allowing atheists to define science, establish its laws and to say when a thing is proven and when it is not is the first error.

 

[Aaron]

I say this as evolutionary theory makes no speculation about the presence or absence of God.

That is definitely untrue. It is the first premise of the theory.

 

[HankD]

has science proved yet where/how life on earth started, and just how man developed intelligence/self awareness?

Yes:

The Secular Humanist Gospel:

In the beginning there was the Singularity which had no coordinates and cannot be explained or defined.
Then there was the Big Bang caused by nobody which nobody heard.
Then there was the expanding universe going nowhere and everywhere at once.
Then there was the Primordial Soup which no one made.
Then, out of that soup cauldron crawled the asexual and bloodless Mr/Mrs Thallophyte who eventually became you and I having no particular purpose but to consume, reproduce, pollute and destroy.

HankD

 

[Crabtownboy]

That is definitely untrue. It is the first premise of the theory.

I respectfully disagree. Can you provide me with a credible link where this is stated?

Good science does not make judgements on whether there is a God or not. Science only tries to explain how something happens or happened. Good science does not make moral judgements.

Another way of putting it is:

The Bible explains why God did what he did.
Science tries to explain how something occurred. In religious terms it would be "how God did it." But good science would not put it that way.

Bad science would include or exclude God.
Bad religion attempts to say this is the only way God could have done such and such.

We should never try to limit God to our own understanding. He is bigger than we can understand.

 

[12strings]

I respectfully disagree. Can you provide me with a credible link where this is stated?

From Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Good science does not make judgements on whether there is a God or not. Science only tries to explain how something happens or happened. Good science does not make moral judgements.

This statement does not hold together... If Science tries to expalin how something happened, then that explaination would included the CAUSE of an event, even if it is God.

Another way of putting it is:
The Bible explains why God did what he did.
Science tries to explain how something occurred. In religious terms it would be "how God did it." But good science would not put it that way.

This is incomplete. The Bible also goes to great pains to tell "how" God created. Genesis does not simply say "God created all this stuff somehow so he would be glorified." It ALSO takes time to break down different parts of creation. It actually does not tell us WHY God created birds (at least not in Genesis 1).

Bad science would include or exclude God.
Bad religion attempts to say this is the only way God could have done such and such.

It would not be bad science to include God. Scientists build on the observations of previous scientists all the time. What makes it "bad science" to take into account the observations of the ONLY being who existed at creation, who observed it, and who wrote down his observations about his own creation? Is it better science to only take into account observations by those who were not there?

We should never try to limit God to our own understanding. He is bigger than we can understand.

Probably true, but there are things we can understand. If God tells us he is good, we should not in our openmindedness consider that He might be Bad. It is not limiting God to say he is good, it is simply accepting what he says about himself.

 

[Crabtownboy]

From Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:
Quote:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Sagan was giving his personal opinion here, not a tenet of science. I disagreed with him in numerous interviews of him on TV. He had some good programs as long as he stay with facts. But when he began to philosophize he quickly left good science and entered into the world of bad science. To me his personal beliefs were in error.

 

[DHK]

This is not true.

If you want to say that one cannot use what we call "the scientific method" to prove the existence of God, you may be correct, because that requires a control. You must have a enivronment where God is, and then one where God is not, and that is impossible.

Infallible proofs of God's eternal power and godhead are all around us. Allowing atheists to define science, establish its laws and to say when a thing is proven and when it is not is the first error.

"In the beginning God...." (Genesis 1:1)
The Bible does not set out to prove the existence of God, rather it assumes it. A good place to start in witnessing to a person is the first verse of Genesis. If they can't get past the first four words, then they will have problems with the rest of the message. There has to be a belief in God before there is a belief in salvation. That belief is assumed. It is stated, and by faith we believe it.

 

[glfredrick]

Sorry you feel that way, and no, "real honest and true science" should in fact be that way. So I will just be content in the naivete implied by you.

I don't "feel" that way. That is the reality of Science and has been throughout its history.

You make it sound like scientists are all altruistic and just sitting back waiting for their pet theories (and government grants) to be overthrown. That is about as naive a position as one can hold and yet claim to be a part of the scientific community as you often do.

Science is cutthroat and often wrong, but try to tell that to the individual scientist, or worse, try to get a text book where young minds are intentionally indoctrinated changed!

I should fess up at this point. Science is useful. I am NOT against Science, per se. I am against scientism, this all pervading notion in our modern culture that stipulates that scientists are the only altruistic persons who only deal with truth as best can be discovered. That is a large load of horse hooey. Science is just as sinful as the rest of humanity, and though a great boost to humanity, also subject to the same tenets that drive the rest of sinful humanity.

I could start listing examples, but that would take all day.

 

[glfredrick]

This is not true.

If you want to say that one cannot use what we call "the scientific method" to prove the existence of God, you may be correct, because that requires a control. You must have a enivronment where God is, and then one where God is not, and that is impossible.

Infallible proofs of God's eternal power and godhead are all around us. Allowing atheists to define science, establish its laws and to say when a thing is proven and when it is not is the first error.

Aaron, before you get yourself out on a limb that you cannot defend, you should realize that this IS true. We can no more prove God than the atheists can disprove Him. He is true when His Holy Spirit confirms with our spirit that He is true, and we can see His effects all around us, but "proof" is not possible, only belief in faith. I expect that God intends it that way on purpose.

To further discuss this issue we will have to gravitate to a discussion of the immanent and transcendent properties of God. While we can see "evidences" based on God's immanence, we can never even begin to penetrate His transcendence, for that is extra-cosmos in nature -- an area that we can never discover save for God's self-revelation.

 

[quantumfaith]

I don't "feel" that way. That is the reality of Science and has been throughout its history.

You make it sound like scientists are all altruistic and just sitting back waiting for their pet theories (and government grants) to be overthrown. That is about as naive a position as one can hold and yet claim to be a part of the scientific community as you often do.

Science is cutthroat and often wrong, but try to tell that to the individual scientist, or worse, try to get a text book where young minds are intentionally indoctrinated changed!

I should fess up at this point. Science is useful. I am NOT against Science, per se. I am against scientism, this all pervading notion in our modern culture that stipulates that scientists are the only altruistic persons who only deal with truth as best can be discovered. That is a large load of horse hooey. Science is just as sinful as the rest of humanity, and though a great boost to humanity, also subject to the same tenets that drive the rest of sinful humanity.

I could start listing examples, but that would take all day.

Please read a little more carefully, I said that "true science" should be as you say altruistic in nature. Yes, often times science is as I SAID driven by all sorts of agendas. I would love for you to expound on the "sinfulness" and the horse hooey of science.