«In the case of geological or biological claims made
by creation science, they are proven wrong.
Not exact matches
Science fiction paints us as petrified
by our own
creations; fears of a bot planet have influenced everything from Asimov's «Laws of Robotics» to HAL 9000's homicidal impulses to Skynet's global genocide.
This tells me that, there is no valid scientific explanation for the
creation of the world because it wasn't created
by science, but
by the creator — God, the Alpha & the Omega.
One may or may not accept Thomas's metaphysical analysis, but at least one can see that the doctrine of
creation, in its philosophical foundations, is not challenged
by any discovery in the natural
sciences.
There are more stories out of the bible that have been proven impossible and or wrong
by science than have been shown to have any credibility... Of course I'm talking about actual
science... not that christian
science and
creation «
science»... which use scientific sounding things and jump to ridiculous unjustifyable conlusions, or that create incorrect premises and then make up answers to suit the questions.
you cant put your finger on it, cant smell it, or taste it, but your soul will rejoice, if you have one left... this is your connection to the world, to the universe... nothing else really matters at all... we see all of this
creation, and we've got the math and
science to figure out a tenth of it, but if we cant realize that it was put here ultimatly out of love, and saved
by the love of ONE true God, then we are blind even to that tenth... God is great, and may he bless you athiest, muslim, christian, jew, gay, whatever... God is Love, but rest assure He is also our Judge, the Judge of our hearts, hope you get them right.
first, i do agree that the
creation of the universe from matter is completely explainable
by science.
It is foolish to dismiss the Bible wholesale based on ones that don't have a solid connection with
science (the
creation of the Earth does,
by the way, but not the time frame which is often assumed).
There is not one shred of truth from
science to account for the presence of life upon the earth
by any means other than a special
creation by the great original first Cause - God - Who is life and the fountain source of all life!
The
Creation: A Meeting of
Science and Religion
by Edward O. Wilson.
If the «wall of separation» is lowered, we are told, our schools may be returned to the days of prayers prescribed
by state legislatures; evolution may be banished from the classroom and replaced
by «
creation science»; and religious minorities may be at the mercy of intolerant majorities.
The present paper assumes an historical perception that the
Creation of God is being undone
by the power of
science and technology, which is being manifested in the form of powers of exclusive truth of scientific knowledge, unlimited technological know - how, and their economic and political organization, such as the transnational corporation and the state, including the military machinery.
chance Biblical
creation has been disproven
by science.
furthermore biblical
creation has not been disproven
by science, it has complimented it.
The terminology favored
by the movement is itself indicative of the degree to which modern scientific questions and secular modes of thought dominate the discussion of
creation: Bible
science,
creation science, scientific creationism,
creation research, origins research.
to Jake, in every era or times in the past, humans have different perception of reality, because our knowledge improves or changes toward sophistication, For example during the times of Jesus, there was no
science yet as what we have today, since the religion in the past corresponds to their needs, it is true for them in the past, but today we already knew many new ideas and facts, so what is applicable in the past is no longer today, like religion, we have also to change to conform with todays knowledge.The
creation or our origin for example is now explained beyond doubt
by science as the big bang and evolution is the reason we become humans, is in contrast to
creation in the bibles genesis,.
In this perspective, the existence of God, far from being disproved
by science is something pointed to clearly
by the Unity - Law of material being and the universal, ordered inter-dependence within
creation.
The kind of theology I will be engaged in here,
by no means the only kind, could be called heuristic theology; in analogy with some similar activities in the
sciences, it «plays» with possibilities in order to find out, to discover, new fruitful ways to interpret the universe.6 In the case of an heuristic theology focused on cosmology, the discovery would be oriented toward «remythologizing»
creation as dependent upon God.
Science was created by God to observe and gain knowledge about Gods creation... Evolution like I said is still only a theory still unproven and still looks silly in the eyes of
Science was created
by God to observe and gain knowledge about Gods
creation... Evolution like I said is still only a theory still unproven and still looks silly in the eyes of
sciencescience
On Wednesday I head to Boston to attend «A Dialog on
Creation» — a workshop hosted
by the BioLogos Foundation and Gordon College that explores questions at the intersection of
science & faith.
Attempting to be loyal to the Bible
by turning the
creation accounts into a kind of
science or history is like trying to be loyal to the teachings of Jesus
by arguing that the parables are actual historical events, and only reliable and trustworthy when taken literally as such.
Science and natural history as we know them simply did not exist, even though they owe a debt to the positive value given to space, time, matter and history
by the biblical affirmation of
creation.
For example, the Bible says that time was created
by God when He created the universe.19 Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, demonstrating that time began at the formation of the universe.20 Of course, the biggest coup of the Bible was to declare that the universe had a beginning21 through an expanding universe model.22 The New Testament even declares that the visible
creation was made from what was not visible and that dimensions of length, width and height were created
by God.23 In addition, the Bible refuted steady - state theory (saying that the
creation of matter and energy has ended) 24 long before
science made that determination.
The Common
Creation Story offered
by the
sciences is an object of intense scrutiny
by theologians as diverse as Gordon Kaufman, Sallie McFague, Wolfhart Pannenherg, Langdon Gilkey, Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke, Nancey Murphy, Robert John Russell and John Polkinghorne, to mention only the most prominent names.
Believing in
creation by God is not denyng the truth of
science.
We had an amazing sermon
by a Chemist at my church last year talking about how
science doesn't refute God's
creation, nor does Creationism refute
science.
The culture in the
science community does that
by valuing the debunking of poor
science as much as
creation of new
science.
The
creation myths of all religions are proven to be incorrect
by modern
science.
All
creation myths are proven incorrect
by modern
science, so basically religion has no evidence.
One clear positive element in the stem - cell debate for me was hearing the top researchers in biomedical
science reinforce The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 343: «Man is the summit of the Creator's work, as the inspired account expresses
by clearly distinguishing the
creation of man from that of other creatures»).
It was great to be able to articulate the vision promoted
by Faith Movement of
Creation through «The Unity - Law of Control and Direction» and to be able to explain and to answer the questions related to
Science and the orthodox Catholic Faith.
Science took a sharp turn; Paley's natural theology, with its assumption of fixity of species since the
Creation of Genesis, careered into obsolescence; eventually, his watchmaker was blinded
by a scathing Dawkins.
Understanding
science is — at it's heart — a religious endeavor; it attempts to get to the structure imposed on
creation by the one who creates.
The finding of more facts, details, and scientific laws does not diminish God in my mind one bit — in fact, the magnificence of the details of His
creation, as discovered
by science, provides more reason for me to believe in Him.
The point is illustrated
by the logic which the National Academy of Sciences employed to persuade the Supreme Court that «
creation - scientists» should not be given an opportunity to present their case against the theory of evolution in
science classes.
James, When the
creation myths of all religions are shown to be incorrect
by our knowledge of
science and the majority of the bible is either proven wrong or can not be verified, don't you think that skepticism is the sensible path?
When the
creation myths of all religions are shown to be incorrect
by our knowledge of
science and the majority of the bible is either proven wrong or can not be verified, don't you think that skepticism is the sensible path?
For far from being a deviation from biblical truth, this setting of man over against the sum total of things, his subject - status and the object - status and mutual externality of things themselves, are posited in the very idea of
creation and of man's position vis - a-vis nature determined
by it: it is the condition of man meant in the Bible, imposed
by his createdness, to be accepted, acted through... In short, there are degrees of objectification... the question is not how to devise an adequate language for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated
by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in
Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).
What it affirms — specifically, the
creation of nature
by a Supreme Being who transcends it — can not represent itself as
science.
It means, obviously, that whatever
science may tell us about the processes
by which
creation takes place,
science can never take the place of the Lord of heaven and earth
by whose wisdom and power the processes were initiated and continue.
However, Weigel gives too little emphasis to the equally prescient emphasis in Gaudium et Spes on the dynamic world view ushered in
by science, nor to its vision of the Christ as the recapitulation of all
creation and history.
By his correlating of
science and theology, he has disclosed fresh possibilities of man's participating in the new
creation.
The doctrine itself must be the same identifiable, defined teaching that is the historic Catholic faith, but this has to be projected against the backdrop of the vast new vista of
creation revealed
by modern
science.
The theological dogma of the human soul being a spiritual
creation of God is often ridiculed as a concept that has been rendered unnecessary
by science.
Tireless lobbying
by that California - based society for the past decade is largely responsible for the introduction in a number of states of legislation that would require giving equal time in
science classes to the teaching of the alleged single account of
creation as recorded in Genesis.
Yet some either deny a concept of God based on a human like diety... without logically understanding it has to be something more than that... or worse only see a chaotic uncaring universe..., without understanding the complexity of the infinite miracles, defined
by science alone, not to mention the influence of noy yet known to
science, occurences... that have occurred for billions of years to end up in their
creation and also supporting their every day survival.
Our attempts to see the natural revelation God has installed in the
Creation act includes what «
Science» discovers, but knowing we need to filter worldly bias in the presentation of such «scientific» evidences since the ideas of the world are driven
by another mindset.
Philosophy and theology might make an important contribution to this fundamentally epistemological question
by, for example, helping the empirical
sciences to recognize a difference between... evolution as the origin of a succession in space and time, and
creation as the ultimate origin of participated being in essential Being.»
«We do not protect the Bible or render it more believable to modern people
by trying to demonstrate that it is consistent with modern
science... It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Genesis to expect it to answer questions generated
by a modern worldview, such as whether the days were literal or figurative, or whether the days of
creation can be lined up with modern
science, or whether the flood was local or universal.
Thus moral insights are intuitions of God's good and perfect will, and aesthetic delight is a sharing in the Creator's joy in
creation, just as the wonderful cosmic order discovered
by science is truly a reflection of the mind of God.