"How could you believe that?"

[TheBeardedDude]

I have discussed evolution with people who are of a belief in god and it doesn't come up, but that is because we stick to the science instead of the metaphysics.

[kingschosen]

(07-12-2012 10:32 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I agree with Vosur, it is mixing it at some level (fine line or not).

If it is an unanswerable question, then there can be no known answer, which is why science does not mix it into the equation. When someone else does this, they are mixing science and something else (in this case faith). Even if they admit that this is a theological speculation, they are still mixing them. Do they think that the science bolsters their claim or that their claim bolsters that made by science? Or both? The answer to all 3 is that it is indifferent because the answer to the question is not known or knowable and any attempt to answer it is irrelevant.

Honest answer?

It's probably because they see the plain evidence of science and see the contradictions to science in the Bible.

It's their attempt to reconcile the empirical evidence that is staring in front of them with the faith based claim of their Christianity.

To a Christian, their faith based claim is unshakable. To a scientist, empirical based claims are unshakable.

This presents a problem for Christian scientists that has to be reconciled.

I faced this problem a while back when I struggled with accepting evolution and becoming an EC.

So, the theological claim is a simple attempt to reconcile their faith and their rationale.

[kingschosen]

(07-12-2012 10:33 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I have discussed evolution with people who are of a belief in god and it doesn't come up, but that is because we stick to the science instead of the metaphysics.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

[Momsurroundedbyboys]

(07-12-2012 07:54 AM)Ricochet180 Wrote:  So, one of the questions that comes up is how anyone, knowing about dinosaurs, evolution, etc. could believe in creationism. (Not to mention deal with things like the flood.) Thought I'd throw what I did, years ago, out there to make it kinda-sorta make sense to me at the time. Some people just go on "faith it's true," but that didn't quite work for me even in the deepest indoctrination.

Like many kids, I was *fascinated* by dinosaurs at a young age. I knew they were extinct, we found them as fossils, we burned them as oil (well, not precisely, but I knew of the process.) On the flip side, "God created the heavens and the Earth, 7 days, adam didn't get eaten by a tyrannosaur," etc. I never believed people walked with dinosaurs, fortunately, outside of the Flintstones.

I felt like I could make the various contradictions make sense. So, my timeline generally went like:

- God creates earth.
- God creates life.
- Wipes out part of life, dinosaurs rise. Big experiment.
- God decides it's time to make intelligent life. Dinosaurs would be bad for this. Sends meteor to wipe out dinosaurs.
- Odd, hazy period where there's an ice age. Ice age *obviously* occurs after creation in Eden, probably as part of punishment of Adam's descendants. And/or to hide Eden. Likely after tower of Babel. (After all, it was all so long ago.)
- God simplifies it when explaining to not-particularly-advanced people by turning all this into "days" of creation. Bible written, Jesus does his cheerleader act ("Gimme a T!" - because everyone wants to nail a cheerleader - insert other punchline here) etc.


Of course, young-earth literalism could never accept that, either. Just glad I never got into that mindset.

I was told dinosaurs didn't exist. Period. It was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by archeologists.

As the world view widened and we entered the "age of information" I doubt seriously they could still believe this. They probably believe now that they lived at the same time as humans --- But that was NOT what I was taught in school.

[Chas]

(07-12-2012 10:29 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 10:14 AM)Vosur Wrote:  What? If you propose that god "authored" evolution, you're not keeping theology and science separate; you're mixing them together.

Fine line, but no.

Much like faith, it's filling in the unanswerable questions with answers. Science is based on empirical evidence that can be tested again and again. That claim cannot be proved through science; thus, it becomes a theological claim.

Which mixes theology with science. Around and around you go.

When you don't know, the scientific method calls for saying "I don't know", not "God did it".

You seem to be unable to grasp that.

[TheBeardedDude]

"To a Christian, their faith based claim is unshakable. To a scientist, empirical based claims are unshakable."


Yes to the Christian, no to the scientist. Empirical evidence based claims are not unshakable, it just takes a really big quake that is also substantiated to send them tumbling. There was empirical evidence and working models to explain a geocentric model of the universe, but those weren't unshakable.

Evolution isn't unshakable, but no alternative claim has ever gained traction or presented any evidence to bolster its claim. Were a better theory to come along and to contradict evolution, it would dropped like it was hot.

[Ricochet180]

(07-12-2012 10:46 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I was told dinosaurs didn't exist. Period. It was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by archeologists.

As the world view widened and we entered the "age of information" I doubt seriously they could still believe this. They probably believe now that they lived at the same time as humans --- But that was NOT what I was taught in school.

I seem to recall seeing or reading something at one point that was just... weird to think of, but seems to fit in some cases. That when someone holds a belief strongly, they can take evidence against it and turn it around so they think - despite the twists, folding, spindling and mutilating of the contradictory information - it supports their belief.

Take that and realize there's a *lot more* information out there that, thanks to the internet, is now much more easily available. And think of just how much they may be "reinforcing" those beliefs.

Bit scary.

(And yes, I did get past all this and realize I was just trying to duct-tape and jerry-rig things together to make faith and science match up. Decided that science could at least defend its position with more than "Because I said so.")

[kingschosen]

(07-12-2012 10:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 10:29 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Fine line, but no.

Much like faith, it's filling in the unanswerable questions with answers. Science is based on empirical evidence that can be tested again and again. That claim cannot be proved through science; thus, it becomes a theological claim.

Which mixes theology with science. Around and around you go.

When you don't know, the scientific method calls for saying "I don't know", not "God did it".

You seem to be unable to grasp that.

No, I get that.

But that's the difference of having faith and not having faith.

And, it's still not mixing theology with science.

Using the scientific method, Christians can still say "I don't know". Because they don't; however, there is an overarching theme that God does know.

...and that is theology.

[kingschosen]

(07-12-2012 10:53 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "To a Christian, their faith based claim is unshakable. To a scientist, empirical based claims are unshakable."


Yes to the Christian, no to the scientist. Empirical evidence based claims are not unshakable, it just takes a really big quake that is also substantiated to send them tumbling. There was empirical evidence and working models to explain a geocentric model of the universe, but those weren't unshakable.

Evolution isn't unshakable, but no alternative claim has ever gained traction or presented any evidence to bolster its claim. Were a better theory to come along and to contradict evolution, it would dropped like it was hot.

I must not be communicating clearly.

I'm sorry.

Empirical evidence is, like you said, unshakable; however, it is replaced with new empirical evidence.

The concept of empirical evidence is unshakable; not the individualized instances of it.

Sorry for being so muddled.

[Chas]

(07-12-2012 11:58 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 10:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  Which mixes theology with science. Around and around you go.

When you don't know, the scientific method calls for saying "I don't know", not "God did it".

You seem to be unable to grasp that.

No, I get that.

But that's the difference of having faith and not having faith.

And, it's still not mixing theology with science.

Using the scientific method, Christians can still say "I don't know". Because they don't; however, there is an overarching theme that God does know.

...and that is theology.

But saying God did it is not science. You can't have it both ways.