Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
knocker

Testing Truth with an Open Mind

Recommended Posts

I've often pondered the question," how can a scientist" be a creationist? I started thinking more about this some years ago after listening to a lecturer who taught evolution explain why she was a creationist! How can the two be compatible I thought.

 

But quite a few scientists are. The best example I can think of is Dr. Roy Spencer. He is without question a top rank scientist but has converted to creationism in later life. Something that hasn't gone down too well in some circles. Rather than me yap on he succinctly explains his 'reasoning' at the link.

 

Am I alone in this or does anyone else have difficulty equating the two?

 

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php#

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannot seem able myself to see the two together no, although I am spiritual I do not see that as a detraction from science.

 

I often wonder where myths and legends of the past came from (as well as the fact we know some aspects of certain religions existed far earlier as Pagan ones).

 

What if for example a jet fighter got zapped back in time to the middle ages, as it roared though the skies of the time firing missiles would the locals of the era look up and see a dragon?  Would a TV or iPad be seen as a magic mirror?

 

Think technology may always have been there?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I perhaps should have said I'm in the Dawkin's camp regarding religion but leaving that to one side.................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one cannot equate the two especially if he truely believe's this

 

 It truthfully portrays actual historical events and has been faithfully copied by scribes over the centuries so that what we have today in the Bible is, to a very high degree (within a percentage point or two), known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the same as was originally written down by the authors

 

The bible today does not truely reflect what was originally written down unless you are happy with cherry picking the written word to further your particular believes.

The likes of Monckton who spout off about how God is on their side etc etc do no favours to science at all. Now I'm not saying we should not live by a moral code and do are utmost to look after our fellow man and the planet we live on but it say's something in my view if you firmly believe all things were created by a supreme being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I perhaps should have said I'm in the Dawkin's camp regarding religion but leaving that to one side.................................

With you (and him) on this, do not subscribe to the intelligent design theory as I do not creationism either, evolution over many millennia is wot did it guv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The creationist point of view comes from the Bible but my personal view is that the Bible is a series of events not to be taken in the literal sense and that the majority of it was written over 2000 years ago to give a specific people, the Jews, some explanation for their existence, a history of their peoples and their views on creation and God.

It was written at time when there was not universal education amongst the people and had to be in fairly simplistic terms for them to understand.

To an extent, I believe it was written as propaganda to cement the Jewish idea of being the 'Chosen People' and in this some poetic licence has been used and a lot of it is written in metaphors.

It also incorporates past legends, such as the flood.

I think some of the things mentioned do strike a chord with modern science, for example 'In the beginning there was a void' - we are not exactly sure what there was before the 'big bang' but it is reasonable to suppose there was 'a void'.

Then if we taken the flood legend, my view is that there was a widespread flood affecting great numbers of people but if we consider that the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, the melt water starting to raise sea levels, then with another surge, some 6,000 to 7,000 years when the area between the UK and Europe was inundated forming what we now know as the North Sea and that it is highly likely that these early people who would have been living in low lying and coastal areas would have been seriously affected by 'The Flood'.

Also in earlier times the area we know as the Sahara desert was a fertile region which contained lakes and received seasonal rains - could this have been the 'Garden of Eden'?

Also if we substitute the word, 'days' for 'ages' relating to the creation of the world we get a sequence of events not too dissimilar to that which happened in Genesis.

The earth was original a red hot orb but then water introduced into the system, whether by volcanic eruptions or by a multitude of icy comet strikes, we don't quite know but there would have become a time when the earth cooled sufficiently to allow for the formation of clouds in the atmosphere and considering the mount of water needed to fill the oceans they must have been very dense and thick enough to be unable to discern the difference between light and day but as these depleted it would have allowed the light from the sun to reach the surface and voila, we have day and night.

As we know, life started in the oceans in the form single cells, which were the origins of the flora and fauna, which after developing in the sea encroached onto the land and formed the basis of life as we know it today.

The original writers of the 'Old Testament' did not have access to the levels of knowledge we have today and tried to deduce the history of creation the best way they could.

In my view it should not be taken literally but understood in the context and the times of when it was originally written, so if we accept that together with the metaphors, I don't think there is not real conflict between the Old Testament and science and who's to say that at sometime in the future that some of our cherished scientific beliefs of today may also be shown to be inaccurate by the standards set at some future time?

It depends on your definition of a 'Creationist' - if it is the person who takes the Old Testament absolutely in the literal sense, then there can be no alliance between that and the accepted science of today but if we were to say a creationist is a person who accepts the Old Testament in the metaphorical sense, as I have described, then there is no reason why this person could not believe in both.

Edited by mike Meehan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i want to know is..who created God?

Wasn't it the Time Lords?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, an Honest Creationist

 

A view by Richard Dawkins

 

http://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_2.php

In a way it does sound like two people from opposite ends of the spectrum to be akin to the pot calling the kettle black - Dawkins is well known for his atheist views but he cannot prove He does not exist any more than those on the other side of the fence can prove He exists. 

 

I still say that if the OT of the Bible is taken as being written and aimed at the 'Chosen People' giving an account of their history, incorporating legends of folklore and in a metaphorical sense it can still be reconciled with science.

 

As is generally accepted in all societies the history of the victor will differ from that of the vanquished though it is about the same events.

 

I still say that a 'day' consisted of hundreds of millions of years, so substitute day for age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reverting to the original question I took it that Dawkin's is saying that 'scientist' is too broad a term and that the discipline is paramount.

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for other religions, beliefs, demoninations but the Catholic Church at least has no issue with science, quite the opposite. Here's a good read on the subject:

 

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0162.htm

 

A snippet:

 

  In 1988, Pope John Paul II addressed a letter to the Director of the Vatican Astronomical Observatory, noting, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.  Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."  As Nobel Laureate Joseph Murray notes, "Is the Church inimical to science?  Growing up as a Catholic and a scientist — I don't see it.  One truth is revealed truth, the other is scientific truth.  If you really believe that creation is good, there can be no harm in studying science.  The more we learn about creation — the way it emerged — it just adds to the glory of God.  Personally, I've never seen a conflict."

 

A sign hung in Albert Einstein's office at Princeton University that read: "Not everything that can be counted counts; not everything that counts can be counted."  Faith cannot be quantified and counted, like forces in physics or elements in chemistry, but that does not mean that faith is insignificant.  Faith helps us to answer some of the most important questions facing mankind.  As important as scientific discoveries can be, such discoveries do not touch on all of the inevitable questions facing us: What should I do?  Whom should I love?  What can I hope for?  To answer questions such as these, science alone is not enough because science alone cannot answer questions that fall outside its empirical method.  Rather, we need faith and reason operating together to answer such questions and to build a truly human community.

 

This is a good summation also

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Stephen Hawking on this, assuming he has been quoted correctly, when he said that the afterlife was a fairy story for people who're afraid of the dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for other religions, beliefs, demoninations but the Catholic Church at least has no issue with science, quite the opposite. Here's a good read on the subject:

 

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0162.htm

 

A snippet:

 

  In 1988, Pope John Paul II addressed a letter to the Director of the Vatican Astronomical Observatory, noting, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.  Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."  As Nobel Laureate Joseph Murray notes, "Is the Church inimical to science?  Growing up as a Catholic and a scientist — I don't see it.  One truth is revealed truth, the other is scientific truth.  If you really believe that creation is good, there can be no harm in studying science.  The more we learn about creation — the way it emerged — it just adds to the glory of God.  Personally, I've never seen a conflict."

 

A sign hung in Albert Einstein's office at Princeton University that read: "Not everything that can be counted counts; not everything that counts can be counted."  Faith cannot be quantified and counted, like forces in physics or elements in chemistry, but that does not mean that faith is insignificant.  Faith helps us to answer some of the most important questions facing mankind.  As important as scientific discoveries can be, such discoveries do not touch on all of the inevitable questions facing us: What should I do?  Whom should I love?  What can I hope for?  To answer questions such as these, science alone is not enough because science alone cannot answer questions that fall outside its empirical method.  Rather, we need faith and reason operating together to answer such questions and to build a truly human community.

 

This is a good summation also

 

 

 

I have a slight problem with that. Is the Pope lapsing into irony?

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...