Can Science and Christianity be compatible? LPoT vs SoR. Also open to others.

[Doug Shaver]

the Genesis account is clear that living things arrived in a gradual manner. I think that's significant.

It is not clear to me that whoever wrote Genesis believed anything of the sort. What they wrote was that some living things appeared on one day and other living things appeared the very next day. They could have meant something something else, but something else is not what they wrote.

And even if the intended meaning of "X on the third day and Y on the fourth day" was "X and Y in a gradual manner," the only significance I can see in that is what it tells us about the author's thinking about how living things arrived. There is nothing remarkable about evidence that some ancient people thought that way about the origin of life.

[Jude]

It is not clear to me that whoever wrote Genesis believed anything of the sort. What they wrote was that some living things appeared on one day and other living things appeared the very next day. They could have meant something something else, but something else is not what they wrote.

And even if the intended meaning of "X on the third day and Y on the fourth day" was "X and Y in a gradual manner," the only significance I can see in that is what it tells us about the author's thinking about how living things arrived. There is nothing remarkable about evidence that some ancient people thought that way about the origin of life.

I respect that you have your own thoughts and ideas regarding this but speaking for myself it is tremendously remarkable that these 'goat herders' (an endearing term that I hear thrown around alot) actually got it right around 5000 years ago. I mean they could have said astral deities birthed them after after defeating opposing forces to create the world but they didn't. I feel at least some credit is due

[Boxing Pythagoras]

While the chronological order of the appearance of life forms may not line up with present scientific layout the Genesis account is clear that living things arrived in a gradual manner. I think that's significant.

Once again, that's fairly typical of ancient creation myths. In fact, I'm not aware of any which posit that all things came into being at a single moment. It's not like the Hebrew Creation myth was a drastic departure from other ancient Creation myths in positing that there was some sequential order to the manner in which the world and life came to be. I'm not sure why you would find this to be significant.

Sorry. I was attempting to show that while the text can support an evolutionary process it would not be a blind or unguided. That God is inputting information into a running system. Also to eliminate a deistic uninvolved creator.

I'm not sure how what you said would eliminate a deistic, uninvolved creator; nor do I see any reason to invoke a "creator" in the first place.

Well it was the concord between science and Christianity that I was trying to address. As for historical accuracy I assume you are referring to the order of appearance of life forms, sun/moon, atmosphere/water, and such? If so, do you think that the truth of Genesis 1 is dependent on its historical accuracy? I don't read it as a science book or a divine encyclopedia. Many believe that the days are not chronologically ordered but that the first three days create the realm for something and the second three create the inhabitants. Westminster Dictionary of the Bible 1944 states that The recital of the facts of creation is obviously not a historical record.

I agree that the passage need not be historically accurate in order to still be relevant to those who believe in the Christian faith. If I didn't, I wouldn't be able to hold to the position that I've put forward several times, in this thread: it seems perfectly obvious that Christiantiy and science can be compatible.

[Jude]

Once again, that's fairly typical of ancient creation myths. In fact, I'm not aware of any which posit that all things came into being at a single moment. It's not like the Hebrew Creation myth was a drastic departure from other ancient Creation myths in positing that there was some sequential order to the manner in which the world and life came to be. I'm not sure why you would find this to be significant.

I haven't studied creation myths. The few I have seen are concerning warring Gods and warring astral bodies; incest amongst the Gods, etc. Usually a god or gods that are within the material framework of an already existing universe. It doesn't hold much interest to me but I would be open to hearing you compare or simply name some of the various myths to which you refer and would be happy to do a little research and see what views are out there among those who have spent a lot of time looking. I will not cease to be impressed though that the Bible in it's opening chapters hit 21st century scientific bedrock concerning a temporal universe and a systematic gradual arrival of life forms. If it is not impressive to you for whatever reason, I can live with that.

I'm not sure how what you said would eliminate a deistic, uninvolved creator; nor do I see any reason to invoke a "creator" in the first place.

The question was is Christianity compatible with science. We both say yes. That obviously does not mean you accept that it is true. I find some concepts put forth in the Bible that confirm my faith. I certainly don't expect you to agree with them.

I agree that the passage need not be historically accurate in order to still be relevant to those who believe in the Christian faith. If I didn't, I wouldn't be able to hold to the position that I've put forward several times, in this thread: it seems perfectly obvious that Christiantiy and science can be compatible.

totally agree.

[JimL]

I think that a few posters here have asserted that Christianity, or more specifically the bible is compatible with science, and even more specifically with the science of evolution. I don't think that anyone has explained in what sense that is true, or have actually submitted a cogent argument supporting that assertion. So in what sense, or what is your argument that supports the assertion that Genesis is compatible with the science of evolution?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I think that a few posters here have asserted that Christianity, or more specifically the bible is compatible with science, and even more specifically with the science of evolution. I don't think that anyone has explained in what sense that is true, or have actually submitted a cogent argument supporting that assertion. So in what sense, or what is your argument that supports the assertion that Genesis is compatible with the science of evolution?

If Genesis is not mistaken for a history lesson, it's fairly easy to see how it can be compatible with science, in general, or biological evolution, specifically. The book very simply says nothing to contradict the lessons learned from these things, and such people find Genesis to contain moral and philosophical truths rather than historical facts. It's exactly the same way that Aesop's Fables or Plato's Dialogues or even Spider-Man comics can convey truths about ethics or metaphysics, despite the fact that no one would pretend these are historically accurate accounts.

[Jude]

I think that a few posters here have asserted that Christianity, or more specifically the bible is compatible with science, and even more specifically with the science of evolution. I don't think that anyone has explained in what sense that is true, or have actually submitted a cogent argument supporting that assertion. So in what sense, or what is your argument that supports the assertion that Genesis is compatible with the science of evolution?

We are asking two things here. First, the compatibility of Christianity with science. For me this is easily shown by the fact that there are world class scientists who are also Christian. For instance, the Genome Project had Watson, an atheist, heading it up followed by Collins, a Christian.

Second, the compatibility of Genesis to evolution. The creation account there does not conflict with an evolutionary account of origins. If you are very interested in seeing the details of evolution in general and a Christian view specifically may I suggest Dr. Dennis Venema's 50 part blog at biologos.org. Of course Simon Conway Morris would be another excellent source of information.

[JimL]

If Genesis is not mistaken for a history lesson, it's fairly easy to see how it can be compatible with science, in general, or biological evolution, specifically.
The book very simply says nothing to contradict the lessons learned from these things, and such people find Genesis to contain moral and philosophical truths rather than historical facts. It's exactly the same way that Aesop's Fables or Plato's Dialogues or even Spider-Man comics can convey truths about ethics or metaphysics, despite the fact that no one would pretend these are historically accurate accounts.

Okay, so we agree then that the history as put forth in the bible is not compatible with science. Biblical history is fabled, i.e. it is in contradiction to science. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that moral and philosophical truths in genesis are compatible with science. Could you elaborate further on that point?

[JimL]

We are asking two things here. First, the compatibility of Christianity with science. For me this is easily shown by the fact that there are world class scientists who are also Christian. For instance, the Genome Project had Watson, an atheist, heading it up followed by Collins, a Christian.

Simply stating that some people, scientist or no, believe science to be compatible with their religion does not show that it is. Collins is a Christian, therefore Christianity is compatible with science is a poor argument.

Second, the compatibility of Genesis to evolution. The creation account there does not conflict with an evolutionary account of origins. If you are very interested in seeing the details of evolution in general and a Christian view specifically may I suggest Dr. Dennis Venema's 50 part blog at biologos.org. Of course Simon Conway Morris would be another excellent source of information.

The waters did not just spontaneously teem with an abundance of living creatures. Man was not formed from out of a mud ball, nor woman from a rib. How is that biblical rendering of lifes origins not in contradiction to the science of evolution.

[Jude]

Simply stating that some people, scientist or no, believe science to be compatible with their religion does not show that it is. Collins is a Christian, therefore Christianity is compatible with science is a poor argument.

There are world class scientists who are Christians. If that doesn't convince you then I can't imagine anything else doing so. Where do you see conflict? In Where the Conflict Really Lies, Plantinga feels that there is only superficial conflict between Christianity and science but deep conflict between atheism and science. Buy his book and read it. He is so much more learned and authoritative than me and speaks directly to your question on a scholastic level. Something tells me though that you're not really interested. Maybe I'm wrong.

The waters did not just spontaneously teem with an abundance of living creatures. Man was not formed from out of a mud ball, nor woman from a rib. How is that biblical rendering of lifes origins not in contradiction to the science of evolution.

The waters did bring forth life. There is no mention of spontaneity. Man is made from matter and woman from man. It was a system that produced life and life forms over time guided by God with direct input of information by God. The story of evolution as told by science is itself incomplete with gaps filled in by best guesses from a methodological naturalistic POV. Maybe the guesses are all right maybe some are maybe none are. My point is that the Christian is not bound to YEC, OEC, ID, or Theistic evolution. The Christian is free to follow the scientific evidence wherever it leads and that is an advantageous position to be in as far as I am concerned. If you believe that the Bible is not supportive of an evolutionary origin then you are certainly free to live your life out of that, but I do and so do many others, including some top scientists. I have told you where to go to get a thorough and scholastically rigorous explanation.

[JimL]

There are world class scientists who are Christians. If that doesn't convince you then I can't imagine anything else doing so. Where do you see conflict? In Where the Conflict Really Lies, Plantinga feels that there is only superficial conflict between Christianity and science but deep conflict between atheism and science. Buy his book and read it. He is so much more learned and authoritative than me and speaks directly to your question on a scholastic level. Something tells me though that you're not really interested. Maybe I'm wrong.

And there are world class scientists who are not Christians, in neither case does that tell us anything other than to some it is compatible and to some it is not. Personally I am agnostic on the matter of origins which, considering that we don't "know" the answer, we all should be, but I don't see the conflict between atheism and science. Since there is no evidence of a God, I tend to believe that the Cosmos is eternal and that the universe and life emerged as a product of the eternal nature.

The waters did bring forth life. There is no mention of spontaneity. Man is made from matter and woman from man. It was a system that produced life and life forms over time guided by God with direct input of information by God. The story of evolution as told by science is itself incomplete with gaps filled in by best guesses from a methodological naturalistic POV. Maybe the guesses are all right maybe some are maybe none are. My point is that the Christian is not bound to YEC, OEC, ID, or Theistic evolution. The Christian is free to follow the scientific evidence wherever it leads and that is an advantageous position to be in as far as I am concerned. If you believe that the Bible is not supportive of an evolutionary origin then you are certainly free to live your life out of that, but I do and so do many others, including some top scientists. I have told you where to go to get a thorough and scholastically rigorous explanation.

The bible does not say that "the waters brought forth life", nor does evolution, the bible says that the waters spontaneously teemed with life, different forms of life, at Gods word. According to the bible God created them all at once, and then blessed them all, saying, be fertile and multiply. God also is said to have created the universe in the same manner, from out of nothing, now of course science can't disprove the negative claim of creation, but the claim is certainly at odds with what we empirically know to be the case, i.e. that nothing comes from nothing. To the second point, gaps in the history of evolution is not the same thing as flasehoods. Man was not formed of a mudball, nor was woman formed of a bone taken from that man. That story is not compatible with the science of evolution.

[Jude]

And there are world class scientists who are not Christians, in neither case does that tell us anything other than to some it is compatible and to some it is not. Personally I am agnostic on the matter of origins which, considering that we don't "know" the answer, we all should be, but I don't see the conflict between atheism and science. Since there is no evidence of a God, I tend to believe that the Cosmos is eternal and that the universe and life emerged as a product of the eternal nature.

Yes. Compatible to some and not to others. I'll acknowledge that. We will all proceed with our personal faith.
I believe that there is evidence for God and that it is strong. Here we are again at an impasse where our faith will direct us.
Plantinga's main but not only criticism of atheism being in conflict with science lies in the EAAN.

The bible does not say that "the waters brought forth life", nor does evolution, the bible says that the waters spontaneously teemed with life, different forms of life, at Gods word. According to the bible God created them all at once, and then blessed them all, saying, be fertile and multiply. God also is said to have created the universe in the same manner, from out of nothing, now of course science can't disprove the negative claim of creation, but the claim is certainly at odds with what we empirically know to be the case, i.e. that nothing comes from nothing. To the second point, gaps in the history of evolution is not the same thing as flasehoods. Man was not formed of a mudball, nor was woman formed of a bone taken from that man. That story is not compatible with the science of evolution.

The Bible says in verse 1:20 " Let the waters teem with living creatures and let birds fly above the earth." That does not necessitate spontaneity. The time period for this to occur is not delegated. I understand "When God spoke" to be a simple way of saying that God introduced some new information into running system that facilitated the arrival of water creatures and birds. Then, as you say, it further says that these life forms having now begun should be fertile and multiply.

As for man, I don't see mudball but dust of the earth. I suppose it can be mudball to you if you want, but to me it is a simple way of conveying a deeper truth that man is made of matter. That Eve was taken from his rib could be an indication of something similar to a cloning process. I think that when God spoke and created man, the speaking is again a description of new data being introduced into the system and that man/woman was a special creation.
I believe in literal interpretation but not in the rigid sense in which you seem to demand of the text. The Bible says that Jesus is a door but we naturally don't expect him to be made of wood or metal and have a lock mechanism. However the statement is still a literal one in the sense that Jesus is indeed a doorway through which we enter into the presence of God.

[Jaecp]

Jude,

Christians working as scientists is not evidence that Christianity, it's doctrines, or other parts of the faith are compatible with science. These are two different things

[Jude]

Jude,

Christians working as scientists is not evidence that Christianity, it's doctrines, or other parts of the faith are compatible with science. These are two different things

I do not agree. Many of these scientists have written books in support of their faith. It is truly hard to imagine anything more confirming than that. Science is a really broad area of focus. Where exactly do you find some conflict that is not philosophical in nature? Gould's NOMA would say there is no compatibility because there is no commonality. Is this your position too?

[KingsGambit]

Jude,

Christians working as scientists is not evidence that Christianity, it's doctrines, or other parts of the faith are compatible with science. These are two different things

It does demonstrate that people with high intelligence have found ways to operate in both spheres simultaneously. And as Jude has mentioned, some of them have written about their integration. Consider Denis Lamoureux, who has a PhD in dentistry, biology, and theology, and who has written extensively on his attempts to integrate the latter two.