Scientific Creationism?

So, why even bother to study science then? Just teach "God did it".

Based on the Bible itself: Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. Psalms 19:2.

The knowledge it reveals is that the universe is very old, and I'm not just talking about the distance to stars.

 

I guess I don't understand your point about photon speeds and time dilation. Why would this be a scientific reason for a young earth? Just curious.

 

I agree that God created everything. No problem there. Its the "way" he created it that we are discussing.

So, Theology is going to tell us about Geology? It can be used in medical school? It can be used in astrophysics?

Absolutely not! You are right, there is no conflict between science and the Bible. And I agree that we know very little about both subjects.

Absolutely not! Where I disagree is with the "YEC" interpretation of the Word of God. How many times have well meaning Christians misinterpreted the Bible and were hard on the secular community because they wouldn't believe their interpretation? How about "flat-earth" and "Geocentricity of the solar system"? In fact, look at how many fundamentalists are going back to trying to prove a flat earth? There are literally hundreds that post on youtube, insisting that the Bible says the Earth is flat and we sit on pillars and the entire scientific community is in a conspiracy with NASA to hide the fact that the Earth is flat. Half way removed from that are those who believe in Geocentricity of the universe and that the entire universe revolves around the Earth in a 24 hour period.

I do too and since I have started studying Hebrew and the way an old Earth creation would be described, I have concluded that our interpretation is based on English and not the original intent of the author.

 

Why would he? It would only confuse 99% of the astronomers in the world. Why would he place fake weather conditions in a trees rings, when it has nothing to do with the strength of the tree? Why not just make them uniform.

Cool, what kind of scientist are you? What I believe is like TCassidy said that we should look at our "interpretation" of scriptures just as much as we should look at our interpretation of scientific data.

Well meaning Christians have been wrong often and have had to change their interpretation of the Bible. For instance; flat-earth, domed sky, and Geocentric solar system.

The Bible makes it clear that his creation reveals him and look as Psalms 19:2. If the night sky does provide knowledge, then he must have scrambled it so that almost every astrophysicist is not able to understand that knowledge.

English translations cannot and do not convey all the meanings of the Hebrew words in Genesis chapter one. I simply interpret it different that you and I see absolutely no conflict between science and the creation story. I also realize that Genesis is not a science book and was never intended to be.

 

No, I didn't object to saying God did it because we know he did. What I objected to was, when a Christian cannot understand something, then he should not just throw God into the gaps. This has been done throughout history and has caused a lot of problems with the advancement of science. If we truly believe in God, then we should not be afraid of science and trying to understand everything we can about his creation. My point is that when science doesn't (yet) have an answer, some Christians will want a supernatural explanation that defies any understanding, rather than trying to figure out the mechanism that God used in this complex creation of his.

Take my field, medicine, there were all kinds of supernatural explanations in the past, most related to religious beliefs. Epilepsy was caused by demons, while now we know it is caused by misfiring of neurons in any part of the brain. It is caused by inappropriate transfer of electrolytes through their receptors. Rabies was thought to be caused by an evil demon. We now have a good handle on the exact makeup of the virus that causes it to infect the nerves and brain. We even know there are dozens of strains of that virus.

If we had just said "God did it" during the research, instead of realizing that "God does it all", but he created mechanisms that we can utilize to fix the problem and the Bible is about Theology and not science, so, it cannot be used in the classroom to tell how to fight these diseases. Sure, a belief in and study of God will make a doctor better, but it cannot train him for what to do physically to fix the problem. It cannot teach him the theories of how cancer cells evolve, or how the DNA actually makes them function in order to treat it.

It is enough that God made the biological system so very complex, but God gave us a brain with over 100 Billion neurons which have 1 Trillion support (glial) cells. He gave us these brains to study his creation and be able to use the natural processes that he created.

The Bible is not and never was meant to be a science book. Just exactly what is "nonsense" that is not taught in the Bible?

I disagree, but that's a discussion for another day since it is quite complex.

I know a lot of Christian astrophysicists who would disagree with you on your interpretation of the Bible and exactly what they do understand of the universe. People who haven't been involved in any of these scientific areas have no idea of how much evidence there is that all fits together. None of that; however, means anywhere even close to the fact that God didn't create all of this complexity and the laws that govern and allow this universe to operate (down to the atomic level and lower) exactly the way he intended it to. He's the one that is a lot smarter than us and I see it every single day in my studies. I think we can agree on that.

I think that is an awfully big stretch to try to make the YEC interpretation of the Bible correct. I think centuries ago the stretch was turtles holding up the earth. . .

I do not disagree and I think the processes and physical laws are quite amazing to direct the processes they do.

Yes, space/matter/matter-energy

Actually, we have proven there is a fourth dimension. Beyond that is hypothetical.

Time, yes, theoretically, but they are also relative.

Matter? No, there are five states of matter.

That's a bit like saying that I'm evil because my bank account number ends in "666" < -- Really, it does. You wouldn't believe how many remarks I've gotten over that. Seriously.

I think the universe is just shouting God did it. It's the method that we disagree on.

No, but it is correct. When a scientist's understanding of what he has discovered conflicts with the bible he should reexamine his understanding of his discovery. [/QUOTE]

It's the "young earth" interpretation that conflicts. Most Christians that are scientists interpret the Bible as teaching an old earth creation.

 

I'm on my way to bed and on my tablet, but I'd like to continue this discussion later. For now,

I'm still an undergrad. I medically retired from the army in late 2014, and began attending the university of Arkansas at little Rock. I'm a dual major in Physics and Math with a minor in secondary education. For what it's worth, I'm on the path to get my BS in Physics and Math, not a BA.

I plan on teaching when I graduate while doing my graduate work. I'm not entirely sure if I'll be continuing in math or physics, but leaning heavily towards physics in the hopes of becoming a NASA scientist.


Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

Firstly, let me say that I am enjoying this conversation. It really feels more like a dialogue and less like an argument than some conversations I've had in the past. I truly enjoy listening to other people's opinions, as long as we can maintain an air of respect, which I feel we have so far.

From everything I've read (admittedly, I'm no botanist), the stress wood IS necessary for the strength of the tree. For it to be able to stand under its own weight, it has to have that stress wood. Otherwise, it would bend under the weight of its own branches. So, with this knowledge, I believe that God created the trees with stress wood.

I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, not 30 minutes ago I was on the phone with a friend and explained to him that my current opinion on the age of the earth and my position on the apparent age of the earth may not be the same position I hold years from now. We have to be willing to challenge what we understand, or there can be no growth. If Martin Luther hadn't examined his beliefs from the ground up, there would not have been a protestant reformation.

These examples are obviously examples of historically held beliefs. But, can we be certain that Christians were using the Bible to maintain their scientific position, or were they using the science of the day as a lens through which they read the Bible? After all, when slavery was legal, people used to justify slavery as being biblical; now we know it isn't. It's possible that we do the same type of thing today; science says this, so the Bible must mean this. It is a balancing act to determine which one is wrong in the case of a disagreement (science or our interpretation).

I don't look at it as a scrambling at all. In the context of a recent creation / apparent old age creation, God would have seen that exploding stars (which show His majesty) would not have been able to be seen in a recent creation, so He placed the explosion as if it occurred earlier in time. He wanted us to see his glory and His power, and I believe He wants us to look to the sky and wonder what else is out there. If for no other reason than to realize that no matter how large our universe is, He's bigger.

I agree. And I'll readily admit that I'm no Hebrew (or Greek, or Aramaic) scholar. My understanding of the original languages has to come from men whose knowledge I trust.

I think that you and I are close in our beliefs here. I think the main difference is that I look at the scientific evidence and see an apparent age, where you look at the scientific evidence and see an actual age.

I agree that it was not intended to be a science book. In my understanding, it is a history book, however. If it is indeed a history book (rather than poetic), then that means what was said was still literal, rather than allegorical.

 

I didn't say that you did not understand something. I am talking about some Christians who use the "God of the gaps" argument. When a process is not known, they will just say it was a supernatural event in an attempt to explain it away and often be resistive to research to find out a cause. God's creation is far more complex than we can ever imagine and from the beginning of time everything functions exactly as planned down to the sub-atomic particles that we cannot see. Each individual one has a purpose and a place. I'm not saying that His guidance isn't controlling the outcomes, but from the very beginning of the creation he put physical laws into place. The Bible is very clear about this. Through the use of these laws, things occur exactly according to plan. We call it nature, but in reality it is directed exactly by those laws. God does create miracles, but if you think about it, those miracles are "natural" to God, yet they appear unnatural to us because we are used to seeing things behave according to the laws he created in the first place, so actually it shouldn't be surprising that He can create miracles. He is simply showing us that He created those laws and he isn't restricted to them. Very natural from God's point of view.

Oh, gotcha. I didn't reference my original post so I didn't understand your comment.

We will save that discussion for another day. I'm not quite up to it now. lol So, I assume that you disagree with the scholars who worked on this issue at the Chicago Biblical Inerrancy Counsel?

Lol, I don't get mad at anybody anymore. I'm getting way to old for that. I just agree to disagree, but I do like to discuss these issues.

Haha, that looks like a "google" result. In the world of leading edge discovery, these things donn't become public very fast unless it is Earth shattering news. I'm referring to actual experiments at the LHC where a fourth dimension (not time), or I guess you could call it a fifth. This was a test to prove that it exists. I'm not a physicist, but the gist of the the scientific papers that I read were about a test where particles were send "somewhere" (this is the part that's way over my head) and they were testing a theory that this dimension exists and mathematically predicted where it would reappear as it cross through the dimensions that we perceive. The test was quite successful.

Actually, plasma is quite common on Earth. It occurs approximately 3 million times every day around the planet when lightning occurs. You said the "universe is shouting" . . . how about all the stars? There are also states beyond those, such as pulsars and neutron stars which are quite common in the universe . . . lol . . . just saying.

So, if both young and old creationists disagree with you, what do you actually believe in this area?

 

I'm genuinely curious here---how old would you say the earth is? And the universe, also, if they differ significantly?

 

The Bang Bang theory is worthless for astrophysics. If Dark Matter and Dark Energy (how is it possible we don't directly observe the effects of Dark Energy?) don't eventually show up, the Big Bang theory will be remembered as the biggest snipe hunt in science history. Never mind the illogic of a causeless cause of the universe.

The Theory of Evolution is worthless for biology and medicine. We know that species are related, some more than others. We don't need Evolution to know what. Anyone expecting bacteria to acquire more than a little trivial variation is going to be waiting a long time.

I don't need to be a theist to recognize that secular origin theories are deeply flawed. So, if I were an Atheist, I'd spend my time laughing at those who think "God did it", because if I can blow off God, that leaves only nature and the hope that science will eventually explain away those flaws.

Crackpots and mostly hoaxes. Atheists ignore science, whenever it's inconvenient to their values, like their denial that homosexuality is a disorder.

 

So how do they interpret Eve being made from a bone of Adam? How about God forming man from the ground like a Potter forms clay?