Is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian?

[The Escapist]

If you want to be serious about understanding evolution, (which you need to do before being able to accept/reject it) I recommend reading some Dennis Alexander

I've read parts of Dennis Alexander's Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? and I would already say it's the best book I've read on theistic evolution.

You're probably very right, but if I remember correctly this isn't a the debate forum.

... The Christian Debate Forum isn't a debating forum?

[ComedyMusicHistory]

... The Christian Debate Forum isn't a debating forum?

Man, I sure have been out of it. All this time I was for some bizarre reason thinking this was the God, Church, and Faith Forum. I was wondering why Zabby, of all people, would be debating in the incorrect forum.

[C. Ingram]

If I throw in my two cents (or sense... or lack thereof)

Evolution as a theory is not entirely complete, it still doesn't explain alot of things (which is to be semi-expected because it's science and if science could explain everything it wouldn't exist and is not in and of itself a reason to reject Evolution).

Just to name one thing that I've been thinking about recently: Evolution doesn't (adequately) explain the origin of conflict nor the origin of death. Also the nature of morality has never been very well explained.

Now I'm NOT saying that these things alone are enough to debunk the theory but I am saying that if you want something that'll explain everything (no matter how oddly or miraculously) turn to the Bible. Also don't tell me I'm absolutely ignorant after saying this. I mean come on I can spell supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. (ok not really I had to google it).

Also a point or two on the logic behind the Bible:

1. Bible relies (heavily) on antithetical reasoning.

2. The Bible assumes its own validity. Meaning that if the Bible were a math problem x is already known whereas in science x is deemed false/unknown until physical/demonstrable evidence has justified belief in existence. Now you can argue about whether the Bible is viable or not for doing that but consider this: one of the prime facets of the Christian way (here meaning that you are a student of Christ like you were/are a student of your junior high English teacher; you do/ try to understand what he says rather than try to explain what he meant based on what you "know" to be true. You don't know infinitely and Christ does so stop. [well he does if you read the Bible like you read your junior high math text book ) (whoo that was long) is faith. Faith, as described by the Bible is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." Now consider that statement for approximately 37 seconds...................Ok now that you've gotten over the fact that the first part says "things hoped for" which sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking to your highly intelligent mind and gotten to considering the second part which states that faith is also the evidence of things unseen you can begin to think like Christ. I'm no theology major (although I mean to be eventually) but I'm assuming (AHH he said the a-word!!!) that this means that an inexplicable desire/belief in/for something is evidence! (as the little yellow men on Despicable Me said "WAAAaaaaaa?")

Here's the bottom line. Man cannot understand the things of God (take it or leave it; everything's relative after all right/wrong?/!). The Bible pretty blatantly claims this. Job 11:7-9 "Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea."

How does this apply to evolution vs. biblical creation? Evolution = man made. Creation = (when the Bible's read conservatively and when it's believed) God made. To say that evolution is true whether it is "scientifically" or not is still saying something that the Bible doesn't. The Bible does say that the world was created in seven days (I don't give a crap whether it was or not) so that's what I'll say. Christians have to understand that Christ demands all from you! That means all your intellectual abilities should be turned towards the Bible firstly, to understand it by examining it through common sense and persistence and, than, to the things the Bible commands secondly, to apply it. To do anything else is to combine the world's teachings with the teachings of Christ. Which is like (ok I'm done with the analogies).

Hope this is somewhat educational and/or coherent. (both would probably be helpful)

[Nicene Nerd]

If I throw in my two cents (or sense... or lack thereof)

Evolution as a theory is not entirely complete, it still doesn't explain alot of things (which is to be semi-expected because it's science and if science could explain everything it wouldn't exist and is not in and of itself a reason to reject Evolution).

Just to name one thing that I've been thinking about recently: Evolution doesn't (adequately) explain the origin of conflict nor the origin of death. Also the nature of morality has never been very well explained.

Now I'm NOT saying that these things alone are enough to debunk the theory but I am saying that if you want something that'll explain everything (no matter how oddly or miraculously) turn to the Bible. Also don't tell me I'm absolutely ignorant after saying this. I mean come on I can spell supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. (ok not really I had to google it).

Also a point or two on the logic behind the Bible:

1. Bible relies (heavily) on antithetical reasoning.

2. The Bible assumes its own validity. Meaning that if the Bible were a math problem x is already known whereas in science x is deemed false/unknown until physical/demonstrable evidence has justified belief in existence. Now you can argue about whether the Bible is viable or not for doing that but consider this: one of the prime facets of the Christian way (here meaning that you are a student of Christ like you were/are a student of your junior high English teacher; you do/ try to understand what he says rather than try to explain what he meant based on what you "know" to be true. You don't know infinitely and Christ does so stop. [well he does if you read the Bible like you read your junior high math text book ) (whoo that was long) is faith. Faith, as described by the Bible is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." Now consider that statement for approximately 37 seconds...................Ok now that you've gotten over the fact that the first part says "things hoped for" which sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking to your highly intelligent mind and gotten to considering the second part which states that faith is also the evidence of things unseen you can begin to think like Christ. I'm no theology major (although I mean to be eventually) but I'm assuming (AHH he said the a-word!!!) that this means that an inexplicable desire/belief in/for something is evidence! (as the little yellow men on Despicable Me said "WAAAaaaaaa?")

Here's the bottom line. Man cannot understand the things of God (take it or leave it; everything's relative after all right/wrong?/!). The Bible pretty blatantly claims this. Job 11:7-9 "Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea."

How does this apply to evolution vs. biblical creation? Evolution = man made. Creation = (when the Bible's read conservatively and when it's believed) God made. To say that evolution is true whether it is "scientifically" or not is still saying something that the Bible doesn't. The Bible does say that the world was created in seven days (I don't give a crap whether it was or not) so that's what I'll say. Christians have to understand that Christ demands all from you! That means all your intellectual abilities should be turned towards the Bible firstly, to understand it by examining it through common sense and persistence and, than, to the things the Bible commands secondly, to apply it. To do anything else is to combine the world's teachings with the teachings of Christ. Which is like (ok I'm done with the analogies).

Hope this is somewhat educational and/or coherent. (both would probably be helpful)

My issue with this kind of reasoning (even though I reject evolution) is simple: God is the author of both the natural universe and the Bible. Therefore there can be no real contradictions between them. Noting that, it is easier to misinterpret words than physical reality. So if prevailing scientific consensus contradicts an apparent reading of the Bible, we cannot simply reject it. Instead, we must analyze both the science and our interpretation of the Biblical text. More often than not, if science contradicts our interpretation of the Bible we're the ones at fault, not the scientific consensus. Now, I will freely admit this is not always the case, but we have to think critically on both sides instead of clinging simplistically to a basic view of either science or the Bible.

[Zabby]

Evolution as a theory is not entirely complete, it still doesn't explain alot of things (which is to be semi-expected because it's science and if science could explain everything it wouldn't exist and is not in and of itself a reason to reject Evolution).

Just to name one thing that I've been thinking about recently: Evolution doesn't (adequately) explain the origin of conflict nor the origin of death. Also the nature of morality has never been very well explained.

I can't respond to the rest of your post. I'm no philosopher or theologian, so honestly (and I don't mean this as an offense to you) I have no idea what it has to do with the theory of evolution. My question for you though is, what does the origin of conflict/death have to do with the theory? I mean, people just assume that conflict and death come from the fact that we live in a finite world. Death is natural part of the fact that everything in this world decays. We're made of finite transient biological systems. We always have. Even in the Bible, there was death in the garden of Eden. People ate plants and fruits. These plants and fruits had to die in order to sustain us. There's no real getting around it. Also the conflict comes from the finite world because there is only a set amount of goods to go around. Conflict is us trying to apportion those goods.

[C. Ingram]

My issue with this kind of reasoning (even though I reject evolution) is simple: God is the author of both the natural universe and the Bible. Therefore there can be no real contradictions between them. Noting that, it is easier to misinterpret words than physical reality. So if prevailing scientific consensus contradicts an apparent reading of the Bible, we cannot simply reject it. Instead, we must analyze both the science and our interpretation of the Biblical text. More often than not, if science contradicts our interpretation of the Bible we're the ones at fault, not the scientific consensus. Now, I will freely admit this is not always the case, but we have to think critically on both sides instead of clinging simplistically to a basic view of either science or the Bible.

Could you clarify a little please? I'm sure your aiming for science and the Bible not one in total exclusion to the other and so am I. But at the same time the Bible was inspired by the Creator of science. So when science apparently contradicts the Bible I would rather stick to the Bible. Especially when so much "science" isn't really science the way we think of science. It's not infallible nor entirely objective because it relies, however little or however much, on human brainpower. Proverbs 16:23 "The heart of the wise teacheth his mouth, and addeth learning to his lips." If the heart of the scientists are off base so, eventually, will their suppositions be off base.

[C. Ingram]

I can't respond to the rest of your post. I'm no philosopher or theologian, so honestly (and I don't mean this as an offense to you) I have no idea what it has to do with the theory of evolution. My question for you though is, what does the origin of conflict/death have to do with the theory? I mean, people just assume that conflict and death come from the fact that we live in a finite world. Death is natural part of the fact that everything in this world decays. We're made of finite transient biological systems. We always have. Even in the Bible, there was death in the garden of Eden. People ate plants and fruits. These plants and fruits had to die in order to sustain us. There's no real getting around it. Also the conflict comes from the finite world because there is only a set amount of goods to go around. Conflict is us trying to apportion those goods.

Everything in the world does decay. And this probably wasn't the best direction to approach evolution from. If you'll allow me to I'd like to admit that I don't know where I was going with that and leave it at that.

That said when speaking with you the bit about conflict doesn't apply. Since you believe in theistic evolution (correct? Sorry if I'm not) conflict does naturally come about because of man's fall from communion with God. However in humanistic evolution conflict serves no purpose in the survival of species. After all "And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken." (Ecclesiastes 4:12) Team work has always been more effective than conflict for achieving the interests of a group. So why did we evolve the tendency to war with each other? Also the bit about something coming from nothing has always been a turn off for me.

Theistic evolution is kinda interesting. It really gives a lot of traction to a theory that by itself is a bit zany. But as for myself I don't like assuming that since scientists say one thing then must be the Bible is faulty. If the Bible says six days then that's fine with me. If science says that's impossible than that's fine with me too but I am very much of the opinion that science is man discovering the works of God whilst the Bible is the revelation of God to man. I more willing to believe God than I am to believe man. In the end I doubt it matters very much whether the world was made in 6 days or several million years. What matters is what happens when you die. (well it does to me anyways.)

[Zabby]

Everything in the world does decay. And this probably wasn't the best direction to approach evolution from. If you'll allow me to I'd like to admit that I don't know where I was going with that and leave it at that.

That said when speaking with you the bit about conflict doesn't apply. Since you believe in theistic evolution (correct? Sorry if I'm not) conflict does naturally come about because of man's fall from communion with God. However in humanistic evolution conflict serves no purpose in the survival of species. After all "And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken." (Ecclesiastes 4:12) Team work has always been more effective than conflict for achieving the interests of a group. So why did we evolve the tendency to war with each other? Also the bit about something coming from nothing has always been a turn off for me.

Dude, we didn't evolve a tendency to be at war. That has nothing to do with evolution. That has to do with scarcity. Evolution is an explanation of physical traits. You don't evolve a sense of charity. You don't evolve love. You don't evolve any sort of moral/mental states. The theory never implies that you do.

Theistic evolution is kinda interesting. It really gives a lot of traction to a theory that by itself is a bit zany. But as for myself I don't like assuming that since scientists say one thing then must be the Bible is faulty. If the Bible says six days then that's fine with me. If science says that's impossible than that's fine with me too but I am very much of the opinion that science is man discovering the works of God whilst the Bible is the revelation of God to man. I more willing to believe God than I am to believe man. In the end I doubt it matters very much whether the world was made in 6 days or several million years. What matters is what happens when you die. (well it does to me anyways.)

Science doesn't say the Bible is faulty. Science says your interpretation of the Bible is faulty. There is no reason to assume that the days talked about in Genesis 1 are literal days, especially when there's so much inconsistency between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The original reasons for the story to be written were not to explain the origin of the Universe, but rather to confer ideas such as, the world was created by God, creation is good and so is man.

[C. Ingram]

Dude, we didn't evolve a tendency to be at war. That has nothing to do with evolution. That has to do with scarcity. Evolution is an explanation of physical traits. You don't evolve a sense of charity. You don't evolve love. You don't evolve any sort of moral/mental states. The theory never implies that you do.

Actually if you'd read my post again you'd notice that I said that the matter of conflict doesn't apply when speaking of theistic evolution. Regardless of whether or not the original theory of evolution has to do with the evolution of physical traits or not the theory does not explain why we have come to display so many attributes which we might identify as properties of the soul e.g. love, hate, emotion. Now it could be said that evolution shouldn't be expected to explain everything and that's granted. More on that some other time.

Science doesn't say the Bible is faulty. Science says your interpretation of the Bible is faulty. There is no reason to assume that the days talked about in Genesis 1 are literal days, especially when there's so much inconsistency between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The original reasons for the story to be written were not to explain the origin of the Universe, but rather to confer ideas such as, the world was created by God, creation is good and so is man.

I have no interpretation of the Bible and I recommend none. If there are multiple conflicting interpretations of a certain thing than simply taking the thing at face value and leaving the miraculous, non-repeatable, and non-falsifiable evidence up to a God who claims to be able to do anything is your best possible course of action.

On the subject of six literal days or not: There's no reason to assume that the days referred to are not literal 24 hour days. The word used in Genesis is yowm (sorry I don't have a Hebrew font) which corresponds to "day" in English which is defined as a 24 hr. period, reckoned as one midnight to the next corresponding to the Earth's movement on its axis. Now like I tried to say before I'm not saying that evolution is not possible nor am I saying that God absolutely didn't use it to create the world. I am saying that the Bible doesn't seem to suggest that and we shouldn't accept anything as absolute that's not explicitly stated by the Bible. I'm not touting that as an interpretation of the Bible I'm saying that's the safest thing to do.

I've never heard of a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 dealing with sections of time. (Put that down to sheltered ignorance) Could you explain it for me?

Also if we do continue this conversation I may try responding in just Bible verses. I'm pretty sure the Word will either speak through me and be more effective or reveal that I'm an idiot. I'll probably use either the Authorized/King James Translation or the English Standard Version.

Hope that's a little clearer. I apologize if I'm being irritating or dissension raising. Not trying to be, just saying it like I think it is. cheers!

[Zabby]

Actually if you'd read my post again you'd notice that I said that the matter of conflict doesn't apply when speaking of theistic evolution. Regardless of whether or not the original theory of evolution has to do with the evolution of physical traits or not the theory does not explain why we have come to display so many attributes which we might identify as properties of the soul e.g. love, hate, emotion. Now it could be said that evolution shouldn't be expected to explain everything and that's granted. More on that some other time.

There's no difference between theistic evolution and scientific evolution. That's like saying there's some sort of alternative physics where God must be accounted for. No one believes in the theistic law of gravity vs the atheistic law of gravity. Honestly, there is no reason for that word to even be there. From a scientists point of view, you either believe in evolution or you don't. How you justify that with your faith is on your own conscience.

Also, "soul" traits, as you call them, are things that fall squarely in the sphere of psychology. Psychology is a very soft science and typically does not concern itself with having strict answers that have to mesh with the larger scientific community. No biochemist or biologist, who use evolution daily to interpret their research, worry about these things. This is why they evolutionary theory does not worry itself with them. Evolution theory will concern a question like, "Why are the moths a different color in North America than in South America?" and will not get mixed up in a question like, "Why do humans love?"

I have no interpretation of the Bible and I recommend none. If there are multiple conflicting interpretations of a certain thing than simply taking the thing at face value and leaving the miraculous, non-repeatable, and non-falsifiable evidence up to a God who claims to be able to do anything is your best possible course of action.

Dear goodness how I hate it when people say that taking the bible literally is not an interpretation. Even if you take Scripture at face value and believe exactly what it says on the page, you're interpreting it. You're choosing to understand it within a specific context. Whenever you read anything you have to interpret it. You're interpreting my words right now as you read them because you're taking what I say and I mean and you're trying to figure it out. You need to decide whether I'm making a comparison or telling you straight exactly what I mean. Reading is a very complex and somewhat dangerous process that allows for a lot of errors if you do not read what the author wrote properly you can easily get a wrong meaning out of it. Look, no one takes Isaiah literally and says, "I'm not interpreting the Scripture. I just believe what's there!" This doesn't happen because that's not what Biblical scholars have agreed the text means. Genesis is such a unique case in Scripture where Biblical scholars can't even agree on whether or not to take it literally.

On the subject of six literal days or not: There's no reason to assume that the days referred to are not literal 24 hour days. The word used in Genesis is yowm (sorry I don't have a Hebrew font) which corresponds to "day" in English which is defined as a 24 hr. period, reckoned as one midnight to the next corresponding to the Earth's movement on its axis. Now like I tried to say before I'm not saying that evolution is not possible nor am I saying that God absolutely didn't use it to create the world. I am saying that the Bible doesn't seem to suggest that and we shouldn't accept anything as absolute that's not explicitly stated by the Bible. I'm not touting that as an interpretation of the Bible I'm saying that's the safest thing to do.

I'm not sure why you brought this up. It seems like you just stated it to say, "Oh look, I've done some research into its!"

I've never heard of a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 dealing with sections of time. (Put that down to sheltered ignorance) Could you explain it for me?

Also if we do continue this conversation I may try responding in just Bible verses. I'm pretty sure the Word will either speak through me and be more effective or reveal that I'm an idiot. I'll probably use either the Authorized/King James Translation or the English Standard Version.

Hope that's a little clearer. I apologize if I'm being irritating or dissension raising. Not trying to be, just saying it like I think it is. cheers!

I'd recommend you read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 yourself and compare them, but I'll give a general overview here. If you follow the days of creation, it goes:

1. God made the Earth formless and dark of waters. Then Light which he separated to Day, Night, Evening and Morning.
   
2. God made sky (aka Heaven) by separating the waters into waters above the sky and waters below the sky.
   
3. God made the land come out of the water and created the sea. Then he made plants on the land.
   
4. God made the Sun to govern the day and the Moon and stars to govern the night.
   
5. God made creatures of the waters and creatures of the skies.
   
6. God made creatures of the land including Man and Woman.
   
7. God rested and called it a holy day.
   

Now compare this to Genesis 2: 5-7, "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."

No plants had been made. No creatures had been made. Man was made first. Man was made on the dry land that was just being watered. Then after man was made, plants, animals, and everything else. Not the same order as the story in Genesis 1.

[C. Ingram]

Well to be perfectly honest I'm not sure whether to continue this or not. I think to get my point across I'd have to take more typing then maybe it's worth. That is to say that I'm pretty sure what I'm saying is correct although perhaps I have explained it poorly. My sense of honor stops me from just not responding anymore but perhaps it is pride. Either way I think that I'm not knowledgeable enough to continue in-depth. I will try to explain the difference between atheistic and theistic science.

To say that there is no difference between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution is ignoring the fact that many atheists use evolution to disprove God. Theistic evolution would suggest that God is the first cause of the ensuing branching out of the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolution has no first cause and usually seeks to disprove the non-physical. In atheistic science psychology is indeed the explanation of certain soul-like traits and as you say it is a very, very soft science. In theistic science (although because of differences in opinions this is not always the case) soul-like traits are considered to be originated by the "breath of God" mentioned in the creation account. This is a non-provable thing and is not usually considered part of observable science. The basic difference between these two sciences is the inclusion or exclusion of God. In atheistic science the possibility of God is a non-entity, it is not taken seriously. In theistic science God is seen as a possible variable in scientific discoveries. Commonly, theistic science is more willing to accept the possibility of inexplicable things, things that cannot be understood in purely human terms. Usually theistic science and reasoning assumes two levels of logic: Human logic; which is understandable from the "inside out" and capable of being fully understood and Divine or Heavenly logic; understandable only as it utilizes human terms and logical machinations. It is therefor not entirely understandable. Earthly reasoning = part of us as humanity, Heavenly reasoning = foreign with certain similarities. There is a point at which these two meet and this is usually assumed to be Biblical revelation.

Hope I was clear.