Well let me tell you.
The problem many people have is that they see Science and Christianity as opposing. When they really don't.
See when you look at real science it does not have a problem with true Christianity, and Christianity doesn't have issue with REAL science.
Science is supposed to use the scientific Method in order to know what is going on.
Scientific Method is defined as,
scientific method
Function:
noun
Date:
circa 1810
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
I have found that when you apply the Scientific Method to the word of God, it all fits. It works, the Bible has turned out to be historically accurate and from all observations it seems to be scientifically accurate too.
part of the problem with Evolution is that you cannot apply the scientific method to it, mostly due to this bit.
"the collection of data through observation and experiment"
no one can go and observe Evolution because it either takes to long or it happened to long ago.
"Scientists" will say they observe the stars to arrive at a time frame. but even Science, when it is being honest, admits that light can be altered (slowed down or moved/bent) and so observing the stars, or rather the light from the stars is not conclusive.
They claim they can observe the fossil record to determine the process by which Evolution occurs. But they don't tell you that in order for the fossil record to work certain things have to be taken for granted.
They say that they can use modern technology to date fossils, but they won't tell you what assumptions have to be in place first.
The other night on a talk radio show, the guest was a scientist who received abuse from other scientists. He believed in S.H.C. or Spontaneous Human Combustion. He pointed out that his views were unpopular because the scientific community didn't understand how S.H.C. Could happen, and because they didn't understand they refused to believe in it.
Then he said something VERY interesting to me.
He chose to compare the Scientific community to the "church" of the middle ages,he said, "scientists seem to be the new priesthood, they have their view of who God is and how everything works and you better believe them or you will be labeled a heretic."
See the reason why people want to deny God is because the church once had a problem in that the people in the church were, people.
Flawed, prideful, self motivated, self aggrandizing people. People who were so determined that they had to be right, that they refused to believe in anything that wasn't in line with what they WANTED to believe.
Now the science community seems to be going the same way, only they want to say the "Church" of today is still wrong, "I mean after all look at their track record with Galileo", and they will not see that even though there was a mistake once there could be grounds for truth here.
After all if the church was wrong then they must always be wrong. The problem is that what they are arguing isn't the real issue.
When the Catholic church condemned Galileo, they based their argument on the point that "if the Bible doesn't say it happened then it didn't happen." And yes I understand there are still people today who think that.
The thing is that, that is a very arrogant view point.
I like the way C.S. Lewis said it. "that is someone else's story and you do not need to know it [now]."
The point is that there are some things in the universe that God may or may not have done, that he did not see fit to tell us about, so the argument that, it isn't in the Bible so it doesn't exist, is not a good one.
On the other hand, here we have something different. God DOES tell us what he did to create the world and all on/in it.
And that actually makes sense for him to do! I mean think about all that we have to learn in school today. and we are still discovering how things work! if God had written down every single little thing he ever did, how every atom and molecule worked, how quantum physics worked, etc... then we would never be able to get through the whole thing. But we do need to know what he did in creation and where we stand in the plan.
He gave us enough that we could function, much like you have to teach the basics first.
If you dumped an Algebra or trigonometry textbook in the lap of a first grader that child would be unable to grasp what is going on.
See just because a first grader's books don't mention Advanced Calculus doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Conversely this does not invalidate what first grade textbooks teach! there is still value to be found in the books that "science" wants to cast off, there is still truth.
As far as it goes. The idea of Evolution is nothing more than a theory, and theory is not proven fact! as you can see by Merriam-Webster's definition.(please pay close attention to the italicized points.)
the·o·ry
Pronunciation:
\ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural the·o·ries
Etymology:
Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date:
1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
(in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all)
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (the wave theory of light)
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b: an unproved assumption : conjecture
c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
The Thesaurus offered by Merriam-Webster is even more telling.
Entry Word:
theory
Function:
noun
Text: an idea that is the starting point for making a case or conducting an investigation (set out to prove her theory that people canʼt really taste any difference between colas, so they buy according to the product's image)
Synonyms: hypothesis, proposition, supposition
Related Words: assumption, concession, premise, presumption, presupposition; generalization, guess, guesswork, inference, speculation, surmise; proffer, proposal, suggestion; feeling, hunch, impression, inkling, notion, suspicion; abstraction, concept, conception
The thing is that Evolutionists want to state that theory is actually fact, just named differently.
We need to stop throwing out all that we have in favor of new ideas that don't fit the facts, and we ought to all be working together to find the real truth, all of it.
For a look at the definitions from Merriam webster online please click on these links. Scientific Method, Theory, Theory according to the thesaurus.
No comments:
Post a Comment