It is best for religions to incorporate science into their theology. It is very
damaging for religions to "disprove" basic scientific principles using
junk science or scriptural arguments. It only damages their credibility.I have friends and family who make the ridiculous claim that the earth
is old 6000 years old. This can easily be debunked by looking at locations
where tree ring dating can go back 10,000 years!I had religious
biology teachers at the "U", and I don't see any BYU science
professors arguing that creation "science" or "young earth"
geology be taught at BYU.
Tiny creatures, Living in tiny little tidal pools, can not imagine
the concept of an Ocean.So with their tiny brains, they deny
it exists, explain things with magic, and to appease their
insecurities, they tell others that THEY are wrong.I'm
lucky -- My religion teaches me otherwise, but some of it's
members are stuck in the pool.Science tells me how, Religion
tells me why.
Two problems exist; False science and false religions. True religion and true
science are completely compatible. My religion teaches me that I don't have
to believe anything that is not true. That's why I embrace it!
FOX News has done a wonderful job selling theological resistance to science
that's intuitively consistent with Christian theology.
Nice try Michael but no cigar.You can't say on the one hand
that science is the only way to understand the physical universe and then do a
slight of hand and imply we humans are not part of that physical universe
because we are not to be understood by science alone. That's
simply picking an choosing what science you want to believe the very thing your
article is arguing against. One of the major problems with choosing
a view of humanity other than the scientific one is which one. There are
conflicting religious views all claiming authority for their view. Culture and
training make that choice for most of us. Science is the only view that is not
tainted with prejudice.
Science and progress of mankind go hand in hand, with religion usually playing
catchup, facing dwindling numbers of adherents.Galileo backed the
idea that the sun revolves around the sun, not vice versa, and was imprisoned
for life, with the Catholic church apologizing 500 years later.In
the information age, things have accelerated. Those who think the Earth is 6000
years old might as well believe in a flat Earth, too, and avoid getting on
airplanes. They are proof that dinosaurs live among us.The current
debate includes same sex attraction, with religions playing catchup and being
left behind again, trying to keep things together as younger generations teeter
on leaving the club because of something that appears obvious, were it not for
religions trying to control everything.
@ There you go again. I watch Fox News and cannot think of one example of them
"selling theological resistance to science". Can you please provide one
RE: "In order to accept the scientific method, they must abandon the beliefs
of their community".... I don't agree with their assumption
that you must abandon your religious beliefs to accept the scientific
explanation for the creation of our universe.I've always
thought however our universe was created... it was by natural means. Meaning
scientifically explainable means. More advanced science than we can
understand... but "Science" none the less.When God said
"Let there be light"... I never assumed he just flipped a light switch
on.I assume that he used science, physics, chemistry, nuclear
physics, etc, and in a very advanced knowledge of science to it's very
core... he coordinated the big bang to result in our universe (and countless
other universes out there).To him... our understanding of Science...
is like an infants.Expecting us to understand how he did it
(scientifically) would be like expecting a baby who can't even talk yet to
understand how an airplane was built, or how nuclear fission works.But science in no way forces me to abandon my faith.
Strong personal emotions, even when popular and shared within your community,
are not evidence of truth. If the concept of honesty and humility
matter at all to you, then you have to look at the evidence the universe puts in
front of you and let the objective evidence speak for itself, even when (in
fact, _especially_ when) that evidence contradicts your personal beliefs.These are objectively established facts for which there is no more
controversy than the direction a rock falls when released from a height: The universe is ~14 billion years old. The Earth is ~4.5 billion
years old. Humans and chimpanzees have >98% the same DNA because both
species share a distant (millions of years ago) common genetic ancestor. That's all established reality.If you want to imagine
that the universe began as a thought in the mind of a supernatural creator,
fine, go ahead. But if you want to imagine an inscrutable, capricious,
supernatural being who controls the weather, decides which sick child lives and
which sick child dies, who wins the lottery and who loses everything in an
earthquake, then you're embracing an endless, dishonest, and above all, a
losing battle with reality.
Re: the idea of a universe that began in a flash that flung stars, galaxies and
clusters of galaxies across the vast canvas of space is, to put it mildly,
compatible with Jewish and Christian belief: "Let there be light." Michael Gerson makes a good point. In fact, the concept of an instant
creation shows up often in the scriptures. A few examples: 1. "I am the same
which spake, and the world was made" (D&C 38:3) 2. "Praise ye him,
sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. . . . for he commanded, and
they were created." (Psalms 148:3,5) 3. "Wherefore, if God being able to
speak and the world was . . . " Jacob 4: 9)On the other hand,
the accounts of the Creation in Genesis, Moses, Abraham and in LDS temple films
contradict one another on key points and simply aren't very credible.
@Steve C. WarrenWESTVALLEYCITYAgreed.I might add
-- The word "Abracadabra" is aramaic for "by my words, I
create"it is derived from Hebrew - 'ebra kidebra' which
translates: "it came to pass as it was spoken."and Hebrew for;Ab(Father), Ben(Son) and Ruach A Cadsch(HolySpirit).In scriptures
-- we learn All things were created by God's "word".John
1:1In the beginning was the Word...and the Word was God.And God SAID
_____, Words are sounds, Sounds are vibrations.Vibrations are energy, and Modern String theory derives that ALL matter
is vibrating energy.so E=mc^2If you want to get even
deeper, think about this -- Singularity is also 100% compatiable
with our Religous belief of "Becoming ONE with God".200 word
limit,Some religous folks will not listen or believe anything I have to
say anyway, they take things literally, so there is no evolution, no
space time continuum, no blackholes, no whiteholes, the earth is flat, the
center of the univers, only 6,000 years old, and the flood covered the earth
35,000 feet deeper than it is now. I don't use Scriptures for
science books.I don't use Science for Salvation.
IF God is who I believe he is... he understands science to the point that he can
control natural forces and the universe in ways we can't comprehend in our
current mortal state. Even smart people like Stephen Hawking are
infantile compared to his understanding of science. No mortal (in our short
lives) even if we dedicate our whole short life to learning everything the
science we understand to this point and beyond... could even approach his level
of understanding of sciences we haven't even discovered yet.===How long has God been studying and using science and natural
forces... Eternity??? So I would assume he knows more than we do.
Even the smartest of us are still "children", to him. And our
understanding of science is like that of a child, when compared to his.===I believe that after this life, not only do we have an eternity
to learn more about science... but our minds will also be "quickened"...
meaning we can understand things that our mortal brains are not equipped to
understand in our current state...May be silly... but that's
what I believe...
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTSo -- we have discovered common
ground.Agreed.Now - let me show you were I come from on some
of our other arguements.1. Do you believe we will use magic or
Science to create our own worlds?a. I think we will use Science -- needing
to learn about climates, heat, old, pressures, fluid dynamics, atmospheric
layers, humidity, dew points, etc.2. Just like fmailies and getting
along with others, Eco-systems and balance in nature is our #2 list of
things to learn, know, and do here. 3. Polluting, emitting
un-natural substances and skewing the fragile balancee in the enviroment will
lead to our own GLORY or Destruction.4. This is OUR Celestial
Kingdom, we either make it our break it ourselves --no magic pixie-dust to clean
it up.5. Understanding God's laws is more than just 10
commandments.This Earth is a Temple -- aka, root word, Template.Patterned after others where we used to live.We will [terra-form]
others in the Future.but, no until AFTER we learn how to tend, take
care, and are found worthy of the one we already have.We've
Those who reject theology and accept science only are more like those who lived
in the "dark ages" than they might want to think. Back then, the common
view was that the sun orbited the earth. Now, those who reject God want to take
His place. They want our thoughts to orbit their thoughts. They think that
because they can "think" that their thoughts are more profound than the
thoughts of their Creator, our Father in Heaven.It's time to
get over ourselves. Just because we have begun to gain a rudimentary
understanding of a small part of science, does not mean that we have become
experts. Our Creator is omniscient. He knows EVERYTHING. He is not
limited to know only what we know. You would think that "scientists"
would respect pure knowledge, but they want everything to revolve around their
way of thinking. The word for that is "luddite".
" . . . a recent poll found that a majority of Americans is "not
too" or "not at all" confident that "the universe began 13.8
billion years ago with a big bang." I doubt that most
scientists would bet on that time frame being accurate to within a billion
years. That conclusion results from measuring a specific phenomenon. But who
knows what other undiscovered phenomena might exist that could eventually
measure the age of the universe more accurately.Scientists
don't pretend to know exactly when the universe began. The 13.8 billion
year number is a best estimate based on available technology. Forty years ago,
available measuring technology suggested the age of the universe to be closer to
5 billion years.And then of course, there's the whole matter of
what makes up the universe and the time-space continuum. Can we even conceive of
time and space or anything or nothing before the Universe with its time and
space ever existed?Yes, I'm not surprised that reasonable
people would doubt such a specific claim regarding the origin of everything. In
fact, it seems overly-presumptuous of mere mortal humans to even make such a
claim.I doubt it too.
There is a simple dividing line that has been well known for hundreds of years:
Science is concerned with the tangible, the testable (by experiment), the
observable, while Religion is concerned with the supernatural (not tangible or
physically testable).There cannot be conflict when this dividing
line is adhered to.
@LDS Liberal,We have more common ground than you think.But my
beliefs are not based on hopes that anybody else agrees, or that anybody who
judges me or my beliefs thinks I'm correct enough, or "worthy"
enough (as you put it).My opinion is MY opinion. Whether you agree
or think it's worthy or not. I put it out there for what it's worth
(which is ZERO to some people). But I don't care if they agree, or think
I'm worthy.====I noticed you were able to spin back
into the usual "I'm right, your wrong" rhetoric towards the end.
But this isn't about politics, or your environmental judge-mentalism
soap-box... IMO We aren't here to judge each other, or to
validate each other. Just to share. ===GaryO,I
don't know the age of the components of this globe. I know it
doesn't matter for my eternal salvation... or it would be revealed.The 6000 year thing is a red-herring. God doesn't see time the
way we do. Who said 6000 years? And in who's reckoning of
"time"? Gods? That's "tradition", not "Doctrine"
GaryO: "I doubt that most scientists would bet on that time frame being
accurate to within a billion years. That conclusion results from measuring a
specific phenomenon. But who knows what other undiscovered phenomena might exist
that could eventually measure the age of the universe more accurately."Your doubts are unsupported by any real evidence. What the many
independently validated lines of objective evidence _do_ show is that the
universe began 13.8 billion years ago, +/- ~50 million years. As a
kid I remember reading that the age of the universe as 10-20 billion years. In
college it was estimated at 12-18 billion years. Later, the estimate was put
right around 15 billion. The error bars are shrinking, not getting bigger. But suppose that somehow you're right and the current estimate is
off by 3 billion years, meaning the universe was 10 or 17 billion years old. How
does that in any way change the fact that a belief in a 6,000 year old universe
is the equivalent of claiming that the driving distance between SLC and Miami is
Scientific discoveries never caused me to doubt the religion of my youth -
history books did.
I have no problem with people who view science as the "practice of
revealing God's laws", but the minute you try to refute the
observations of science solely on the basis of religion, IMHO, you are skating
on thin ice.
LDS Liberal,I think we will use science.Science so advanced...
it would appear to be magic to children like us.===Re:
"Polluting, emitting un-natural substances and skewing the fragile balancee
in the enviroment will lead to our own GLORY or Destruction"...Our salvation or destruction is not based on environmentalism. It's
based on the Savior and our belief in him (not our acceptance of GW
rhetoric).===Re "This is OUR Celestial
Kingdom"...The father doesn't intend for this planet to
remain the way it is now... forever.It will change very drastically.
I don't know if man will cause that, or if natural forces alone will
cause it, but it's part of the plan. Pretending man can prevent God or
change his plans for his earth... is the height or hubris.Note:
I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of the earth. Obviously we
have been commanded to till it... and take care of it. But the earth (as we
know it) is temporary. And that's not something we must stop, or force
God to change.IMO... do best we can... but accept God's will.
@2 bits – “Pretending man can prevent God or change his plans for
his earth... is the height or hubris.”I’m sorry but this
is just too much…The height of hubris is anyone thinking they
know the slightest inkling of the mind of God. And why? Because when you read
something second hand you get a “spiritual feeling?” Prophets, priest and believers have been making this claim since time
immemorial so perhaps a review of the facts are in order.1.Name a
fact about the natural world for which we once had a religious explanation that
has now been superseded by a scientific explanation? 2.Name a fact
about the natural world for which we once had a scientific explanation but has
now been replaced by a better religious explanation?Given the
obvious answers of “countless” and “none” respectively,
can we please join the 21st century and finally place the label of
“hubris” where it is justified?I mean just how bad does
a track record have to be before we question its validity!
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTLDS Liberal,I think we will use
science.Science so advanced... it would appear to be magic to
children like us.*************** Agreed -but
here's were we differ --- If we understand was causes Global
Warming, and Global cooling...The tides, The weather, chemistry, acids, and bases, geo and solar heating, volcanic,
magnetic and gravitationsl forces..God has told us the Earth will
"become" something beter.Take the parable the Talents.He gave us this beautiful Earth.He expects us to MAKE something MORE of
what he has given us.Not polluted, scarred from industry and
mining, uninhabitable, ugly and someplace to avoid.God
gave us this beautiful Earth, Man - via the Fall - corrpupted it, By
using our intellect, and his revealed wisdom, WE can redeem the Earth,
make it a Parasdise, and transfor it inot a Terrestial and later Celestial Glory
for ourselves.Some think "enough and to spare" means being
free to exploit and waste, and God will send a heavenly cleaning crew to
clean up after his messy children, and then reward them for it.
This is an interesting thread. Some people believe in Science. Some people
believe in God. Some people believe in both. Some think that we can turn this
earth into a celestial world using our abilities and knowledge. I contend that
we cannot because the keys to turn this world into a terrestrial or celestial
earth have not been given to mankind. I contend that we are to feed and clothe
and house all of God's children, as best we can; that we are to use our
resources to do that; that we are to work together as children of God to
accomplish that; but, I recognize that doing that will require the Master's
hand, which means that it will not happen without His direct intervention.
Science will not accomplish that task. Democrats will not accomplish that task.
Republicans will not accomplish that task. That task will be accomplished when
Zion is established - and Zion will be established when all mankind is united.
Science gives us something to talk about, but, without God, science
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahDoes the sermons -- "You
are my Hands",orEven as you have done it unto these, the least
of my brethern... - have any meanings to you?I say again --
God is not a puppeteer in the Sky.We are his chldren, NOT his
pets.You clean up after your dog, You teach and expect your
children to cleanup and take care of themselves and each other.
I am simply amazed at science and its limitations on knowledge. Science tells
the bible literalists their 6,000 year creation is wrong. LDS liberal relates
it to the creature in a tidal pool who cannot see the ocean. But the human mind
in its quest to discover its end has given us another arbitrary number of about
14 billion years. Their understanding of the universe is still the simplistic
creature in the tidal pool. My understanding of the use of the word
universe includes all components, the whole. The universe did not start at 14
billion years. It has always eternally existed. The big bang was maybe a
single simple event in the universe. The universe cannot expand beyond what
already exists because it already exists.It is a bit bigger than
getting out of the tidal pool and seeing the ocean. The ocean like sciences
definition of the universe is still limited. Science needs to step up and
accept the universe is not expanding, it already is and always has been and
always will be.
People should leave room to bend! You know, there are lots of little and once in
a while, something big, that comes around and it doesn't exactly match a
person's beliefs. If we can bend a little, it helps. We don't need to
re: LDS Liberal, Openminded,You've made some interesting points
on all five of your posts. You've told us some of the principles that you
believe. You've cited some conference talks. What you've failed to
do is to count. You've made five posts to write about Godly things.
We're allowed four posts. Saul was severely chastised for breaking the
rules. David was severely condemned for breaking the rules. Joseph Smith lost
his ability to translate for a season for breaking the rules. Most of us know
enough about science and math to be able to count to four. How about you?When the laws of science are known perfectly, as our Creator knows them,
there will be no difference between science and religion. After all, "The
glory of God is intelligence". And, one of my favorites: "And truth is
knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;"
The Bible does NOT say the earth is 6000 years, that is philosophy of men
mingled with scripture.What the bible says is 6000 is approximately
the age of the current state of earth, or more correctly that how long since
adam and eve were kicked out of the garden of eden.We have no real
revealed knowledge of the earth before that, only of the garden eden and we have
no idea how long that place existed.Ultimately the age of the earth
is irrelevant and has no real important meaning and no bearing on our
salvation.--@BlueWe have no common ancestors
with apes or monkey.We have no relationship with them other than a
common creator.We have genetic similarity because are have similar
genetic features, and there is nothing more to it than that.We did
not evolve, nor did any modern animal. There is no real scientific proof of
evolution just a belief and a made up fantastic story.
@TylerYour questions are irrelevant, and even miss the mark
badly.Religious truth and scientific are not separable,truth
can not be separated from itself.Each is just a perspective of the
truth.They are not enemies, they do not oppose each other. Nor can
they truth can not oppose itself.It is only men that oppose God, and
men's philosophies and ideologies that oppose God's.Galileo views was opposed by men and their philosophies and beliefs and their
agendas, not by God, the doctrines and revelations in the bible.But
in answer to your question,Science is approaching what was revealed
by God to Abraham, in the book Abraham.
"the truth,"You're welcome to personally disbelieve
scientific evidence all you want. You're 100% wrong, but you do have the
right to be wrong. BTW, the physics that make the 21st Century work
are eloquent evidence of how "right" science is in understanding the
antiquity of the universe. If the evidence for the Big Bang is wrong then
nuclear power plants and your car's GPS wouldn't work.Go
to church and rail against genetics, biology, physiology, astronomy, geology,
and the laws of physics all you want. But the moment you try to
insert those irrational, backward and corrosive beliefs into our public policy,
especially into our schools, you're going to have a huge problem, because
the only way a free society can work is if there is a common expectation of
honesty and an honest respect for provable facts.Faith is not the
same thing as truth.
"Science gives us something to talk about, but, without God, science offers
nothing".That may be a personal belief or creed of yours but it
is entirely wrong. Science all by itself offers us much. Not everything, nor
does it claim to. Science can tell us much about where we came from
and why. Science can tell us much about our present condition as humans and
citizens of a living world, and it does it all without a reference to or
reliance on God. Contrary to your claims life itself offers us joy,
hope, love, along with sadness, trials, and sorrows. Where do I think those
experiences come from you ask..life and the human condition.
@ Mike Richards "They [scientists] want our thoughts to orbit their
thoughts. They think that because they can "think" that their thoughts
are more profound than the thoughts of their Creator, our Father in Heaven."
I find your thinking incoherent. As you well know science is a
method. There is a problem with including God in a scientific model, because we
don't know if God in fact exists (you may know, but I don't).It's interesting how the presumption of God's existence can mess up
scientific research. Did you know that the original opposition to evolution
came from the notion that God would never let one of his created creatures go
extinct? Of course, we know that such is commonplace. God appears nowhere to
be found.Opposition to global warming comes from the notion that God
is in charge and He wouldn't allow the earth to become uninhabitable
(sounds like Rush). But thermodynamics says the world is decaying as a fit
place for us all by itself (we accelerate it by burning fossil fuels). God just
doesn't function is scientific models.
I see no conflict between religion and science. In fact, both are needed to
have a complete understanding. Religion teaches the "who" and the
"why" and science teaches the "how". In this mortal stage of
our development, it is our job to learn as much as we can so when we pass to the
other side of the veil we have the basis on which to build as we continue to
If "You" believe, it's real.
I don't think the Earth began 13.8 billion years ago. I think it began
13.75 billion years ago. As Hillary would say, "What Difference Does It
Make!" It's here and we live on it. As for what happened before the
big bang and where all the matter came from to create the universe, (which had
to be there before the big bang) good luck trying to figure that one out
science. That's where you will need a lot of faith.
@the truth – “Galileo views was opposed by men and their
philosophies and beliefs and their agendas, not by God, the doctrines and
revelations in the bible.”Unfortunately you missed my point as
evidence by this comment above.Religion claims to provide knowledge
about the natural world and has been doing since the first shaman told his tribe
a story (no doubt meant to convey they should listen to him) about the starry
skies at night. By now this catalogue of religious wisdom comes to
us through books, prophets, priests, revelations, and believers
“feelings” yet never provides any criteria for knowing when these
sources might be wrong – we are simply admonished ad nauseum to have faith
and obey these men/books of God.You admit the Church was wrong on
Galileo yet you’re only able to do this through hindsight and an
acknowledgment of science – there is nothing in your beliefs enabling you
to make this judgment 500 years ago.So again, given the abysmal
track record I think we are entirely justified in rejecting the entire project
(religion as a vehicle to knowledge about the natural world).
"There now appears to be corroborating scientific data that this specific
universe came into existence 13.798 billion years ago within a tolerance
accuracy of 0.037 billion years." And such is the limitation of science as
it reverts to a psuedo - religion as it tries to establish a beginning. Science tries to set a single line of existence with a beginning and an
end. "Some have suggested that this universe might be just one among many
or even an infinite number of universes that likewise exist." Tell me where
is the edge of this universe, and I will show you one step further. Multiple
universes? How, because they would exist in the universe. Physics tell us you
can not create something from nothing, you can't take something and make it
nothing. Science searches for the basic foundation of all existence, they call
it the god particle. Every time they think they have found it it becomes a
combination of smaller particles.
I love true science. However, I despise and mock theories that are portrayed as
fact and as being universally applicable. The universe is a very
large expanse. Time and events are much greater than the small dots and glints
we see. Factually, science can only see and decipher a very small portion of
what goes on out there. Yet, the scientific world constantly portrays their
findings as universally applicable to everything out there and the laws we
currently understand are the sum total of all available laws and processes in
the universe and that it's been this way for literally billions of years.
They make up conclusions based on a couple of pixels of a very large, 3D image
that we know as the universe. Then, they claim their conclusions are universally
true facts and we're all stupid if we don't "believe" or go
along with their self-aggrandizing blather. That's my problem
with so many theories that are touted as established science. My little brain
can see thru assumptions of so much of today's "science".
Blue -“Your doubts are unsupported by any real
evidence.” Which the doubts? Oh, you mean my doubt that the scientists
have determined the universe to be 13.8 billion years old.These
scientists are obviously using a narrow definition of the word
“universe.” I’m not. If any word is deserving of an
all-encompassing broad definition, it is “Universe,” the sum of all
that is.No real evidence exists to support the idea that only
nothingness existed before the big bang. Whatever existed before the big bang
was still part of the universe, by its broadest definition.The big
bang may well have happened 13.8 billion years ago, but was that really the
beginning of everything? I doubt it.