Do you see anything wrong with being a Christian, and a Scientist?

Question

I don't. I don't think it matters. I don't believe that science really does anything to disprove the existance of God. One thing however, is the creation of man. The Bible says that God created man from the dust of the earth. It also says that God created man in his own image. So, I do not believe that "Man" evolved from another species. I believe man was always man. Sure! Its possible that man evolved from a different form of man, but he did not evolve from something like apes or monkeys. On the other hand, I believe animals and microbes did evolve from possibly one species to another. But I do not believe we are the same. I think where created in a whole different way. In reality, it is impossible to know everything that happened in detail as far as how everything was created. Radio Carbon Dating isn't really as accurate as they claim. But we can get an idea. So-Called "Scientific Facts" are not always fact. There have been people that have said that the laws of physics cannot be broken when they have. There are things in spcae that defy these very laws. Even the great Steven Hawking was Mocked for saying things like "Black Holes eventually turn into nothing". This goes against the law. lol... But he turned out to be correct, so man isn't all knowing. His arrogance makes him believe that he is all knowing, but he isn't. I think that God and science do have more in common than the scientific community realizes.

Answer 1

Once again, "What you said, 10 Cane." I'd like to add this.



Religion asks the "Why" questions and Science answers the "How" questions. If you take the Bible literally, you will probably have some kind of conflict, but really there doesn't have to be. With every scientific discovery about our universe, I reflect on how awesome God is to have created such amazing things in such intricate ways. Religion does have a hand in ethics, but then I believe ethics are the responsibility of all of us including agnostics and athiests. We need to reflect on the nature of life, and that is a Why question so of course Religion will always play a big part in how science is applied in our world.





Recently a fantastic man of Science, Bill Glove, who was also a devout Christian died of cancer here in Australia. Bill was a great contributor to some of our Science broadcasting on our national broadcaster, the ABC, and before he died, he recorded one last talk for "Ockam's Razor", which is one of our weekly programs. You will still be able to download the audio in MP3 format for a few more days, but the link to the transcript is below. The talk is titled "Science and Christianity: hand in glove" and in it he reflects on the nature of Science, of Christianity and of death. What he says is basically what I'd like to say to you, except that he does it much better.

Anyone interested in the whole Science VS Religion issue would do well to reflect on his words.

Answer 2

1) Nope. We've PROVEN that us and apes descend from a common ancestor and if you roll all the way back to the start every species on earth descends from a single cell organism.

2) No, we actually do know a lot that happened in detail when it comes to how it all was created. We don't have all the pieces of the puzzle, but we're starting to see the picture.

3) The only people who claim Radio carbon dating is inaccurate don't actually know what it is. Radio Carbon dating is basically testing the radioactive decay of the carbon molecule by half every thousand something years and they test how much it has decayed. The half-life, which is the measuring stick of radio carbondating, NEVER changes naturally. With technology we can change it, but guess what happens? When you change the half life of something, you've turned it into an unstable atom bomb.

4) No. Scientific facts aren't ALWAYS right, but they're the best answer we can get. Why? Because millions of scientists devote their life to this kind of stuff and they're the experts.

5) The laws of physics can't be broken. They are the LAWS of physics.

6) No. Black holes don't break the laws of physics, they just changed the way scientists look at physics.

7) No, the arrogance of religious people like you make YOU believe you have all the answers, to every last detail. That YOU know the creator of the universe and you know how it happened and you know it all, and that everyone else is just misguided and wrong. Guess what? A lot of the people who disagree with your idea on how the universe started also agree with each other and have PHDs. Coincidence?



8) You loosely believe evolution, but not the full of it. You're excluding Speciation, which is when new species are brought about through isolation and mutation. We do NOT come from monkeys, we descend from an ancient common ancestor. If you look at our chromosomes and compare them to an ape, ours are pretty much exactly the same except the last two chromosomes for us are stuck together thanks to a mutation.



BTW: If you know a few, go and talk to them about this because you need to take a second look at physics and evolution before you come here talking about how radiocarbon dating isn't accurate and how evolution doesn't cause speciation.

Answer 3

No I don't see anything 'wrong' with being a Christian and a scientist (especially considering that the label 'Christian' is rather loose).



I'm a scientist, I'm (slowly) working toward my PhD, and I'm actively religious. There have been a number of my beliefs I've had to shed due to life experience and physical evidence which came later making the beliefs rather untenable. The basics are still there though, and I cannot think of any cases in which science would even be able to falsify them.



I've noticed that those who insist that espousing any kind of religious beliefs and practicing science simultaneously is "dishonest" tend to be philosophical materialists. For those of us that are dualists, there is not contradiction. We understand the two realms, the two "separate magisteria" of knowledge. In the end, if we are to have a battle to see whether materialism or dualism is correct, we'll just end up with a word salad. The debate will continue to go on as it has for millennia.



Your Tu Quoque appeal to Dr. Hawking doesn't impress me though. Evolution is readily demonstrable by evidence and even capable of being manipulated and predicted. This is an example of a religious belief you might be *compelled* to shed if you are serious about science. Science stops just short of the supernatural (assuming that the supernatural exists). The origins of our species is very much a question about the natural world, so your religious beliefs about said world are not immune to being knocked down.





ETA: Wise Duck: That's interesting for me to hear considering that my grad work is in Neurosci. So when exactly did we solve the hard problem of consciousness? Also, if dualism is dead (and presumably materialism is the philosophical victor here), then determinism becomes a natural assumption. Do we have absolutely no free will at all? Are every single one of our behaviors predestined? Until we can account for human agency, materialism is seriously lacking.



This isn't to disparage materialism in its entirety. Science is inherently materialistic (as it should be), and we should always exhaust all natural explanations for natural phenomena. When our collective experience informs us, however, that we're (at the very least) currently unable to reduce our consciousness to its sum parts, a supernatural explanation might not be all that crazy. Untestable, but not necessarily crazy.





ETA2: Indeed the *brain* is meat, and it is also the physical foundation upon which the emotions of our human experience play. Naturally, altering the biochemistry of our brains alters our emotions, but does it alter the big picture? Does it render us as individuals void, or even "new" and "different" people?



Can we reduce our consciousness to even the level of neural protein channels? Could it be that what we experience really is much more than the sum of its parts?

Answer 4

I believe any scientist making any statements in the realm of science has an obligation to uphold scientific facts, regardless of religion or other personal beliefs. For example, if one does not believe in evolution of man, I believe that scientist should admit they have no evidence. They should also be knowledgeable of, and ready to supply information of scientific theories they don't personally agree with.



One doesn't have to agree with every aspect of science to make a contribution to science. However, presenting ideas as scientific fact that obviously defy science is a threat to decent education. The bottom line is that someone can have beliefs that contradict science, but they can't go around claiming there is empirical evidence for them just because they have a PhD.

Answer 5

No, but it is rather improbable. Less than 10% of scientists follow any religion in the USA.



You just cannot equate mythology with facts.



EDIT: We did NOT come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor.



EDIT2: Re additional details.

If you know some scientists, then you should take a little time out and discus this with them.



Many other animals show intellect and emotion.



Yes I do disgaree, wholeheartedly, but I do not resort to name calling. For your information we have 6 children and 4 grand children and it is nowhere near bedtime here, it is 14.35 where I live.



I do not see it as an insult to my intelligence, it just makes me rather sad that an enquiring mind can be stifled by the dogma of religion that refutes and seemingly despises a decent education.

You should ask yourself why.



A government will only educate the general population to the level that it requires, Education is expensive. If your leaders want war, then they will only educate the people to cannon fodder standards.

Answer 6

Fringes of science maybe but your views would mean that if you answered an exam paper with honesty about your religious views you would fail miserably!!



Even the major churches think your thinking is screwed!!



The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept evolution and the big bang!!



Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!!



Nice that christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at your expense!!

Answer 7

scientist draw their conclusions on fact not what they believe. Ones belief is another persons lie and that is not their job.

Id rather have a scientist who does not believe in any religion to find way earth and people were created rather than a scientist who believes in religion who would jump to conclusion based on his on peronal beliefs.

Its bias

Scientists and religion dont mix they would be ignoring everything they dont believe in rather than following where the evidence leads.

I agree there are some things that we see and cant explain and cant prove as you say however it just mean we have not the technology to detect why it has happened and how.

Just because humans cant explain why things have happened, against the way they have studied does not mean science is wrong it just mean they have to look further. Thats whats science is about finding the truth through fact not belief.

Answer 8

I think that God made science to govern the universe, like the president has governors, God has science to help keep control of everything.As for your question of evolution,I have but one question for you: What is Man? Is it not possible that God had created us diffrently than we are today? Is it not possible for the lord of all to be able to edit his creations as time wears on?Yes, I am chrishtain and I think that those that belive the Big-Bang theory dont realize that God could have caused that explosion that lit the universe...after all, the first thing God said was "Let there be light".

Answer 9

It is intellectually dishonest. At work you demand evidence for any explanation of the natural world and view all ideas critically, then you go home and turn it off. I don't know how people manage it.



And you are wrong on so many levels. We did evolve, we share a common ancestor with the rest of life, carbon dating is accurate, ect.



Edit: I hate to break it to you 10 cane, but dualism is dead. Neuroscience killed it. The brain is the mind.



The mind is meat. You've been studying the brain, you should have learned this. Alter the physical structure of the brain, and you alter behavior and emotions. Where does a soul come into play?



And whether determinism is true or not is an interesting philosophical question, but it is impossible to test.



If you believe in an omniscient god, then there isn't free will either and the universe is fixed.

Answer 10

I do not understand for the life of me why some Theists feel threatened by science. Science cannot disprove God, it only helps us to understand the world better..

Answer 11

Jesus Jumping Josephine Christ, how stupid can somebody get. Not only are you ignorant, you're arrogant. What in your tiny little mind makes you think that humans are any different from animals, especially considering the ridiculous amounts of evidence that not only suggest evolution, but undeniably prove we are descendants of a common ancestor we share with other primates. (By the way, we're still apes).



There are so many smoking guns for Evolution, you have to be either blind or a moron to deny it. What am I saying, even blind morons accept it. There needs to be a whole new level of stupidity for Creationists.



*walks away*

Answer 12

Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind.

Answer 13

well done demonstrating exactly why you can have problems. the evidence for the evolution of humans is not really any less solid than for any other modern species... more solid if anything, because as humans we naturally care more about where we came from, so we go out of our way to look for evidence there. evidence from fossils, genetics, anatomy, biochemistry and so on is all very consistent with the idea that humans evolved. your misunderstanding of radiometric dating doesn't solve your problem, it's just one piece of evidence among many. if you're serious about science, you're going to have to forget this particular piece of "religious knowledge" you have.

Answer 14

I have been researching evolution and find it is a hoax, now I'm trying to find out why. I think I have:



- THE EVOLUTION DECEIT -

1 - The War Against Religion

"The leaders of science see themselves as locked in a desperate battle against religious fundamentalists, a label which they tend to apply broadly to anyone who believes in a creator who plays an active role in worldly affairs… Darwinism plays an indispensable ideological role in the war against fundamentalism. For that reason, the scientific organizations are devoted to protecting Darwinism rather then testing it, and the rules of scientific investigation have been shaped to help them succeed."

- Philip E. Johnson, California University

An interesting society was found in Bavaria, south of Germany in 1776. The founder of this society called “Illuminati” that is, “the Enlightened” was a professor of law called Adam Weishaupt. This society had two attributes which made it very interesting, it was a very secret society and it set up a very pretentious political program. In the program written by Weishaupt, the fundamental purpose of the association was defined as follows;

1. The abolition of all monarchies and methodical governments.

2. The abolition of all "theistic" religions.

The conduct of the society towards religion was extremely antagonistic. According to what the English historian Michael Howard expresses, Weishaupt felt a "patalogical hatred" towards divine religions.

The society was in fact a Masonic lodge. Weishaupt was a senior freemason and he arranged the society according to the traditional organization style of the Masonic lodges. Illuminati grew in an astonishing speed. Weishaupt, established a great authority over hundreds of intellectuals who participated in the society. A very minor part of the society members could be able to see the "big master" Weishaupt, face to face. In 1780, with the participation of Baron Von Knigge, one of the biggest masters of the German Masonic lodges, the power of the society extended extremely. Weishaupt and Knigge started preparations for making a revolution which would be defined as “socialist”. Yet, when the government discovered the setup, Illuminati masters Weishaupt and Knigge decided to participate only in their regular freemason lodges and dismiss the society. The union was realized in 1782.



In the first years of 1800’s, a new society was established in Germany trying to preserve the Illuminati tradition. The name of the society was “the Association of the Honests". By time, its name turned to be “the Association of the Communists”. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote the Manifesto of Communism with the instructions of the so-called Association of the Communists. As known, the Manifesto defined religion as the “opium of public”, asserting that one the conditions of an ideal society should be a “society without any class”. He considered this to be the only way for the salvation of humanity with the elimination of all religious beliefs.

Answer 15

Christian Science.



God made scientists.



I'm just wondering about the transformers movie where the guy say's "If God made us in his image....then who made them?" *_*

Answer 16

Not necessarily, but from your comments I find it hard to believe that you have the proper impartiality to be an effective scientist. You let your faith color your findings/studies

Answer 17

Of course not.



to be the best scientist you can be, you WILL be a Christian.

Answer 18

no be it that many scientists re in fact christians

Answer 19

there are many that are christian

Answer 20

no