[__ 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.

 

[Elijah7777]

Those named scientists find that a literalist view us not compatable with the sciences.

Then they are not representing science they are atheists. Science is Agnostic and has to be in order to be science. No one has ever shown me a conflict between science and the Bible. In fact Science gives us the best evidence that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

When scientists step beyond those boundaries to make metaphysical claims—like saying miracles are impossible or that divine intervention is inherently unscientific—they’re not speaking from science anymore, but from personal belief systems. And often, those beliefs lean atheistic.

What's fascinating is that many giants of science—Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday—were deeply theistic. They saw their work as uncovering the intricate design of a Creator. And even today, some areas of science seem to harmonize stunningly with the biblical record.

 

[miamited]

some areas of science seem to harmonize stunningly with the biblical record.

But what about those areas that don't? I mean, you seem to be allowing that 'some' areas do, which would infer that 'some' areas don't.

 

[JLB]

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?

Why do they feel so threatened?

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.

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.

It would be nice if our resident scientist joined in too.

Barbarian
Uncle J

In one word, the reason is a Stronghold.

A fortified belief system that was constructed to oppose the knowledge from God.

A stronghold is a lie we have been programmed to believe.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Then they are not representing science they are atheists. Science is Agnostic and has to be in order to be science.

I don't disagree. I was giving context to the people mentioned.

No one has ever shown me a conflict between science and the Bible. In fact Science gives us the best evidence that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

This is interesting, Science is a methodology and the Bible can't be showne to be 100% accurate with science considering the Bible is not a science text.

When scientists step beyond those boundaries to make metaphysical claims—like saying miracles are impossible or that divine intervention is inherently unscientific—they’re not speaking from science anymore, but from personal belief systems. And often, those beliefs lean atheistic.

What's fascinating is that many giants of science—Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday—were deeply theistic. They saw their work as uncovering the intricate design of a Creator. And even today, some areas of science seem to harmonize stunningly with the biblical record.

Without the context of where the mentioned atheists were coming from it wouldn't make sense. Creationism or intelligent design doesn't allign with current understanding in biology, physics, geology, etc.

The mentioned atheists were mostly going after claims presented by the Creation Institute, Kent Hovind, and Answers in Genesis.

 

[onlysaved]

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?

Why do they feel so threatened?

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.

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.

It would be nice if our resident scientist joined in too.

Barbarian
Uncle J

Romans chapter 1.

God's power and charecter are plainly seen by what has been made but people love their darkness so they suppress the truth with lies.

The use of science against God is simply people trying to hide their sin by saying there is no God and therefore no sin and in that way justify their bad behavior.

 

[Elijah7777]

This is interesting, Science is a methodology and the Bible can't be showne to be 100% accurate with science considering the Bible is not a science text.

If it’s falsifiable, it’s science. That’s the beauty of the scientific method—it gives us a structured way to test, verify, and either affirm or discard ideas based on evidence. We don’t need fairy tales when we’re looking for answers. My father was a doctor, and when you walk into a doctor’s office, you expect advice rooted in evidence, not myths.

Now, if a biblical claim makes a testable assertion about the natural world—something measurable—then it can be evaluated scientifically. That’s why certain parts of the Bible, especially where they touch on history, archaeology, or biology, are open to scientific scrutiny.

What gets disproven isn’t the Bible itself—it’s poor translations or misguided interpretations. The core text often endures; it’s our understanding that evolves.

The real question is often: Is it possible? Neil deGrasse Tyson does this brilliantly with science fiction. It’s not about whether something is likely—just whether it could be. Possibility opens the door to discovery.

That brings me to a memory. As kids, we used to skate on Beaver’s Pond near an old 1800s foundation. I remember imagining the woman who might’ve lived there—how she hauled firewood, maybe rented space for a donkey, lived off frogs or fish from the pond. Whether it’s fiction or fact, the story helps us grasp what might’ve been possible for the early settlers in that muddy, oak-covered stretch of land.

My grandmother even wrote a family history tracing how we came to own land—granted to a Revolutionary War veteran in exchange for nearly worthless payment. But that land became ours. Still is.

The point is: we're busy enough exploring what is possible and verifiable. That’s where science excels—and why it’s the best tool we've got for understanding the world around us.

 

[miamited]

Big Bang theory is wrong, claim scientists

The Big Bang theory is wrong and the universe is sitting inside a black hole, scientists have suggested.

www.yahoo.com

It's all just a guess! I read pretty regularly that this theory of the past or another has been determined to no longer be the truth that was believed concerning the matter.

Now, they are guesses based on some observable evidence, but guesses still the same. I understand that many people believe what they are told without question because someone who is seen as some expert in the field says so, but it seems clearly by explanation of the above posted article that we're still guessing. God has told us how He created everything and it's our choice to believe God or man. I think the Scriptures are pretty clear that most people are going to believe man.

 

[Elijah7777]

I read pretty regularly that this theory of the past or another has been determined to no longer be the truth that was believed concerning the matter.

I had a dream about this when I was around 8 years old. Nothing has changed since then.

Nahmanides (Rabbi Moses ben Nachman), a 13th-century Jewish scholar, had ideas that intriguingly align with modern Big Bang cosmology. In his commentary on Genesis 1:1, he described the universe as originating from a tiny, insubstantial point, which then expanded—a concept remarkably similar to the singularity at the beginning of the Big Bang.
https://www.bing.com/aclick?ld=e8-b...YmI5YzM&rlid=49b37ca01f2f1028c13f14e9846bb9c3

The Big Bang theory as we know it today was first formalized by Georges Lemaître in 1927, but ideas about a finite universe existed much earlier.

Around 1,000 years ago, medieval philosophers debated whether the universe had a finite or infinite past. Thinkers like Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali, and Saadia Gaon argued for a finite universe, challenging Aristotle’s idea of an eternal cosmos.

One particularly fascinating early concept came from Robert Grosseteste in 1225. In his treatise De Luce (On Light), he described the universe beginning with an explosion of light, which then crystallized into stars and planets—an idea that bears some resemblance to modern cosmology.

Would you like to explore more about how ancient thinkers shaped our understanding of the universe?
Some scholars argue that ancient Hebrew texts contain ideas that align with the Big Bang theory. The Bible describes the universe as having a definitive beginning, which resonates with modern cosmology.

For example, passages like Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") and Isaiah 42:5 ("He who created the heavens and stretched them out") suggest a finite starting point and an expanding universe—two fundamental aspects of the Big Bang model.

While Moses lived over 3,000 years ago, not 1,000, some interpretations suggest that biblical descriptions of creation could be seen as early conceptual parallels to modern cosmology. Would you like to explore more about how ancient texts relate to scientific theories?


Edit this response

Maimonides big bang

Maimonides, the 12th-century Jewish philosopher, didn’t explicitly propose the Big Bang theory, but his writings in The Guide for the Perplexed explored ideas about creation and the nature of the universe that align with some modern cosmological concepts.

Of course something had to contract before the universe can explan but that is another story.

 

[Elijah7777]

how long before every element in our body is different from what is there now


The atoms in your body are constantly being replaced, but the timeline varies depending on the type of tissue. Some estimates suggest that 98% of the atoms in your body are replaced every year, meaning that within about five years, nearly all atoms have cycled out.

However, different parts of the body renew at different rates:

• Skin cells: Replaced every few weeks.
• Liver cells: Renewed roughly every three years.
• Bones: Fully replaced about every 10 years.
• Heart cells: Only about 40% are replaced over a lifetime.
• Brain neurons: Some never regenerate, meaning certain atoms may stay with you for life3.

So while most of your body's atoms will be different within a few years, some structures—like parts of your brain—hold onto their original atoms for decades. Fascinating, right?


Edit this response

 

[GodsGrace]

Romans chapter 1.

God's power and charecter are plainly seen by what has been made but people love their darkness so they suppress the truth with lies.

The use of science against God is simply people trying to hide their sin by saying there is no God and therefore no sin and in that way justify their bad behavior.

I have to say that not all atheists behave badly.
Some behave better than Christians.

I believe part of the reason is that science IS their religion.
They're materialists....they only believe what could be visibly seen and what could be "proven" by
scientific methods. Empirical evidence. Something that could be observed and repeated.

This, however, doesn't explain the deep hatred for any religion.
Maybe they truly believe we'd be better off without it.

Just something interesting to think about.