[_ Old Earth _] Science Can't Explain Everything

[Imagican]

I think that there is much confusion of what science really is. Science is the study of and explaining of our environment. It is not evil nor is it bad. Science is basically man's limited understanding of the tools God used in creation.

There are certainly scientist that would try their best to discredit creation or God but science itself does not even come close to doing this. It proves the fact of creation rather than taking away from the concept.

Mahtematics is not a creation of man but the discovery by man of the nature of God's creation. Everything in creation is determined by numbers. From the basic structure of atoms to the basic structure of DNA EVERYTHING revolves around numbers.

At one point God himself stated that as far as knowledge is concerned that once man ate the fruit in the garden that: "Now he is become as one of us." The indication here is that we have the ability to understand the knowledge of creation in time. If God is infinite then we are yet babes in the scope of eternity. Given the time, we are capable of being able to understand the complete nature of creation. Unfortunately our maturity in spirituality pales in comparison to the things that interest us most.

The fruit would have not always been denied us. God wished for our spiritual maturity before allowing our exposure to all other knowledge. We were selfish and disobedient which lead to the seperation. Had we learned what mattered most first-love-we would have been offered not only the fruit of the tree of knowledge but access to the tree of life also.

 

[Justice]

200 years ago you would have screamed at science for not stopping polio, the plague, small pox, measles, mumps, rubella, etc.

The question was does the "good" out weighs the bad??? So far I'm not convinced. The one thing that science can take full credit for is the ability to blow this planet and all its life forms into non-existence. No more need for cures or advancement.

Blaming God for men's self-destructive knowledge moves the bar. It enpowers the evil found in the hearts of men. That power can decide who if not all shall die. That's dangerous for those who find pleasure in playing God.

Which is easier the scientific ability to destroy/kill or cure???

Nuclear weapons from the hearts of men. Maybe you can prove that WMD's are the product of good.

Justice

 

[Drew]

I still think one is taking on the wrong enemy when one claims science is responsible for such modern day threats as nuclear warfare. Human beings cannot help but do science - the thirst for knowledge is simply too strong (and too valuable in my opinion) to suppress or constrain. Science is no more responsible for the threat of nuclear war than sexual drive (as a property of humans as a collective) is responsible for specific incidents of rape. Both the inclination to discover the workings of the world through science and the drive to reproduce are fundamentally good things (neutral at worst). Attempts to suppress both will have undesirable consequences.

It is, of course, true that without science we would not have nuclear weapons. But it does not follow that the "bad" of science outweighs the "good". It is even possible that we will do ourselves in using the technology that has arisen through a scientifically generated understanding of the world. But the enemy is not science! It is the darkness of men's hearts. Jesus says that "Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" not because "their deeds were scientific". In Genesis God orders man to "subdue the earth" -science is a necessary means to do this.

The enemy is dogma and arrogance, not science.

 

[Justice]

I still think one is taking on the wrong enemy when one claims science is responsible for such modern day threats as nuclear warfare. Human beings cannot help but do science - the thirst for knowledge is simply too strong (and too valuable in my opinion) to suppress or constrain. Science is no more responsible for the threat of nuclear war than sexual drive (as a property of humans as a collective) is responsible for specific incidents of rape. Both the inclination to discover the workings of the world through science and the drive to reproduce are fundamentally good things (neutral at worst). Attempts to suppress both will have undesirable consequences.

It is, of course, true that without science we would not have nuclear weapons. But it does not follow that the "bad" of science outweighs the "good". It is even possible that we will do ourselves in using the technology that has arisen through a scientifically generated understanding of the world. But the enemy is not science! It is the darkness of men's hearts. Jesus says that "Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" not because "their deeds were scientific". In Genesis God orders man to "subdue the earth" -science is a necessary means to do this.

The enemy is dogma and arrogance, not science.

Wouldn't you say that destructive science is something that is done???

deed

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... &x=24&y=12

1 : something that is done <evil deeds>
2 : a usually illustrious act or action : FEAT, EXPLOIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Destructive science is a DEED of evil:

Evil --- as in causing harm:

Instead of Mincing words, please show me what good can possibly be found in the massive devastation: Here's a couple of links:

http://www.idbsu.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/hirosima.htm

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/10/japan.hiroshima.film/

Science should be used towards the betterment of life not discovering and enacting ways to destroy it.

 

[Drew]

Instead of Mincing words, please show me what good can possibly be found in the massive devastation: Here's a couple of links:

http://www.idbsu.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/hirosima.htm

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/10/japan.hiroshima.film/

Science should be used towards the betterment of life not discovering and enacting ways to destroy it.

I cannot imagine how anything I have written could have reasonably have been interpeted as supportive of using science to destroy life. Furthermore, I think that there has been no "mincing of words" on my part. I think this is one of those situations where we may have to respectfully agree to disagree......