Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Cafe - Open Discussion
>
How frustrating it must be...
date
newest »
newest »
This discovery gives me goosebumps, and I don't even fully understand the science behind it. The realities of our universe are amazing!
One of the most refined solution to the "starlight problem", proposed by the experts on answersingenesis, is that God did not create all the parts of the universe "at the same time". (More precisely, it is done through abandoning the "cosmological principle" and effectively making us the center of universe.)
From reading a few pre-darwinian English writers I tend to think that the whole "Christianity vs. Science" conflict arose largely as a misplaced counter-reaction to certain criticisms of the Bible by early Darwinists.Even in Richard Whately's logical works, for instance, I can recall places where the great antiquity of the earth is just assumed and treated as common knowledge, and even places where something akin to the process of evolution is alluded to without any sign or hint of concern. I think certain Darwinists, not understanding the long traditions of allegorical interpretations in Genesis etc., rejected the Bible for their new theories and in turn many Christians, understanding these things no better, rejected Darwinism for their own NEW theories.
We are feeling the effects of this conflict even to this day. But I think this is a modern phenomenon. Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and uncountable other early scientists saw no substantive conflicts between science and Christianity.
The ignorance is on both sides, though, unfortunately.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, for instance, insisted in an interview that the allegorical interpretations of Genesis came AFTER scientific discoveries disproved Genesis. But folks like Philo of Alexandria, who said belief in a literal six-day creation was a sign of great simplicity, prove, not only that such interpretations have a ground in the text independently of modern scientific criticism, but also that these interpretations are as old as Jesus Christ himself.
When a scientist speaks ignorantly and a Christian hears ignorantly, conflict is the natural consequence. I think things are getting a little better in this regard, but there are still many who are still reeling from these old blindness-born quarrels.
Isaac Newton has some rather unorthodox views on religion though. But yes, I agree that the anti-science version of biblical literalism is largely a modern phenomenon, partly as a reaction to secularization and partly because people started to take things more seriously after the Age of Reason.
Even the Vatican now believes Science and Religion need not be incompatible.
The Vatican has always believed science and religion are not necessarily incompatible (that little dust-up with Galileo notwithstanding). The Vatican didn't have any problem with Copernicus, for example, and has never condemned evolution.I think the notion that God created the world with starlight en route is pretty deceptive, more so than I'm willing to ascribe to the Source of All Truth. After all, if true, that means the light we're seeing does not correspond to any actual body in the heavens. It's just unsourced billions upon billions upon billions points of light, and any actual stars out there are too far away for their light to reach us yet. So it says God created stars the light of which we cannot see, and that God created light the source of which may not exist. Deeply problematic, imo.
If there is a God, he is surely much bigger than the ancients thought. Of course, in a few hundred years, we may be the antiquated ancients, impressed by such simple things as God's creation of a 14 billion year old universe.Xdyj, I don't know that people are taking things more seriously after the Age of Reason, I just think we've lost our appreciation for myth, and can't seem to think any deeper than literalism. Stuck in a rut, we are.
Many YECs (like the good scientists of answeringenesus) have abandoned the en route thing because they don't like a deceitful God, and instead prefer to build their extremely complicated models of physics and cosmology that are always left unfinished. Personally I think YECs should all go read the convoluted mess in creationist "scientific" journals, and then some good, real science e.g. Einstein's 1914-1915 papers on general relativity (which eventually leads to black holes and gravitational waves, and are available freely, online, in English, and should be readable to any college student with enough patience), and decide for themselves which one is more likely to be true in a universe created by a supposedly perfect God.
It's only deceitful based on what God promised or stated.Our lack of understanding is not necessarily his problem.
Can we apply this issue to the immediate creation of a grown Adam as well? And a nightly made Eve out of a rib?
Jake wrote: "From reading a few pre-darwinian English writers I tend to think that the whole "Christianity vs. Science" conflict arose largely as a misplaced counter-reaction to certain criticisms of the Bible ..."When a scientist speaks ignorantly and a Christian hears ignorantly, conflict is the natural consequence. I think things are getting a little better in this regard, but there are still many who are still reeling from these old blindness-born quarrels.
Great point Jake.
Quote from Lee's gravitational article:"This collision of two black holes had been predicted but never observed."
"This COMPUTER SIMULATION shows the collision of two black holes, a tremendously powerful event detected for the first time ever by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory"
Ummmh, there's a whole lot of NOTHING in that article. Many over eager/bored scientists found some waves and presumed some guesses around it. Like finding a pigs tooth and holding that up as FACT of evolution. I like to think science has higher standards.
Here's the only bit of honest science in the article:
"The new LIGO discovery is the first observation of gravitational waves themselves, made by measuring the TINY DISTURBANCES the waves make to space and time as they pass through the earth.
YES, but can it help me get better Classic Rock radio reception? I doubt it.
"Based on the observed signals, LIGO scientists estimate that the black holes for this event were about 29 and 36 times the mass of the sun, and the event took place 1.3 billion years ago. "
Rod wrote: "Quote from Lee's gravitational article:"This collision of two black holes had been predicted but never observed."
"This COMPUTER SIMULATION shows the collision of two black holes, a tremendously..."
Gravitational wave is a logical consequence of general relativity, which is fairly well-established science without which your GPS will not work. As to your Classic Rock radio, it is based on electromagnetism, from which Maxwell (who happened to be a devout Christian btw) calculated the speed of light 150 years ago.
So we have a LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE and a ESTIMATES being spewed forth by scientists desperately in need of funding and publishing.I still don't see how any of this is supposed to frustrate me. I hope they continue to make some great HONEST scientific declarations that are healthy and useful to us human rats.
Yaaaayyyy science. Build me a New Toaster!
Rod wrote: "So we have a LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE and a ESTIMATES being spewed forth by scientists desperately in need of funding and publishing.I still don't see how any of this is supposed to frustrate me. I hop..."
By showing the logical consequence of a theory is true, we get another piece of evidence affirming the correctness of this theory. Testing a well established theory and further confirming it may seem boring, but this is what separates real science like relativity and quantum mechanics, both survived countless testings of this kind, and "not science" like YEC, which has been tested exactly 0 times. Besides, even though it is probably true that no one is surprised by gravitational wave, the actual measurement of it is a great feat of engineering which may have important applications in the future.
By the way, are you aware that the aim of science is truth not usefulness? Many scientific discoveries turn out to be useful eventually, but that's just a side effect.
Xdyj quote:" and "not science" like YEC, which has been tested exactly 0 times"
And you have read how much Young Earth Creationist literature? Do you NOT think they are daily testing and investigating their scientific claims??? OF course you don't - but did you even look?
Actually the aim of much science is MATERIALISTIC TRUTH --- not truth itself... or any other truth. Very few scientists go looking for God or His methods. But those that do are quickly mocked and harassed by people like YOU.
Just for fun: "Today as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all.
2005 Creation Mega Conference
(By the way, Dr. Humphreys will be one of more than 20 leading creationist researchers who will be speaking at this July’s Creation Mega Conference.)
...Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood)."
I could post 100's of things like this From my 3 favorite YEC sources. There's no shortage of Christian BIBLICAL scientists.
You mean a Christian scientist has to believe in a fully literal interpretation of the Bible? The flat earth, the domed sky, the whole deal?
Rod wrote: "Xdyj quote:" and "not science" like YEC, which has been tested exactly 0 times"
And you have read how much Young Earth Creationist literature? Do you NOT think they are daily testing and investig..."
I did read quite a few YEC academic journals that are freely available. I have a weird fascination with ideas unpopular with the mainstream society, YEC being one of them.
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-gravitat...