[__ Science __ ] SCIENCE HATES CHRISTIANITY?

[Milk-Drops]

I've been considering why there is this big debate between science and Christianity.
One seems to explain HOW things happen, and one seems to explain WHY things happen.
It seems to me there is no conflict.
So why create one?

Why are persons such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, devoting much of their life to degrading Christianity and trying to convince others to hate religion as much as they do?

Essentially Dawkins, Krauss, and Harris came from a time period where there was a huge political push of an Evangelical and literalist Biblical view in education. Those named scientists find that a literalist view us not compatable with the sciences. However their criticisms are primarily focused in just a literalist view.

Why do they feel so threatened?

At the time (mid 2000s to early 2010s) there was a huge push during the W Bush and Obama Presidencies to include Intrlligent design in science classes. It was not an issue that people believe in God, the issue was that intelligent Design did not meet basic criteria to be included in science curriculum.

Why is Intelligent Design such a distasteful idea to these persons, who are scientists and should be looking for the truth - whatever it may be.

The main issue with intelligent design is that it's more a critique of several theories and not a oldi theory on its own. The big bang, abiogenesis, the theory of Evolution are based on mechanics that are teachable and testable. Intelligent design was more of a fill in the gap with a very vague concept of "intelligence" that could not be measured. It was/is a God of the gaps style argument. It works better as apologetics than a theory or law on its own.

I'd like to ask one of our members how the eye can be explained by evolution,
and how the cell can be explained by evolution. Macro evolution.

In evolutionary theory, the eye can be traced back in several instances of starting as photo sensitive cells, to cup eyes,to pin hole eyes, to fluid filled cup eyes, to retractable Cornelia style eyes. The stages are traceable through phylogenetic where the building andodifocations can be seen where mamals adopted the eyes from sautian and aqautic ancesters. The different types of eyes are cataloged back pretty far. Now for cells, it depends on what you are ask8ng for, animal cells, plant cells, single called organisms, multicellular colonies. I'm not as versed in microbiology, but the theory of evolution is based around decent with modification. All h7man cells contain the same DNA usually ( a few exceptions like white blood cells and red blood cells) and epigenetic is where the cells turn the genes on and off to specialize a bone cell from say a liver cells. All animal cells are based on modified cells from our ancestors.

Retroviruses are traceable and are passed through lineages, and are good markers to trace back ancestry.

 

[Tenchi]

I've been considering why there is this big debate between science and Christianity.
One seems to explain HOW things happen, and one seems to explain WHY things happen.
It seems to me there is no conflict.
So why create one?

Why indeed? Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Mendel, and many other renowned scientists of the past (and present) found their faith in God a spur to scientific investigation, not a barrier to it.

The Bible indicates what, at bottom, is at play in a person's resistance to God and the Gospel.

John 3:19-20
19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

John 7:6-7
6 So Jesus said to them, "My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune.
7 "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.

Romans 1:18-23
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Why are persons such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, devoting much of their life to degrading Christianity and trying to convince others to hate religion as much as they do?

Why do they feel so threatened?

See above.

Why is Intelligent Design such a distasteful idea to these persons, who are scientists and should be looking for the truth - whatever it may be.

Because scientists aren't pristine seekers of Truth, always following it wherever it leads. Like the rest of us, they are people with hearts "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9; Titus 3:3; Ephesians 2:1-3, etc.) and, if God doesn't do something to rectify their heart-condition, they will inevitably reflect this corruption of heart in their scientific endeavors.

 

[Barbarian]

Why indeed? Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Mendel, and many other renowned scientists of the past (and present) found their faith in God a spur to scientific investigation, not a barrier to it.

True today. One of the greatest living biologists is a confirmed Christian who proclaims his faith in God. And he does this without rejecting science. Francis Collins came to find God on his own, without turning his back on the truth.

Not all creationists are dishonest or ignorant. There are many of them who freely admit the evidence supports evolution, but prefer their reading of the Bible to the evidence. That's an intellectually honest position.