Science Does NOT Make A Negative Response To The Bible

The age of the earth has been debated for centuries. Many people believe in evolution that it took billions of years for everything and everyone to form. Others believe that God created the earth in seven days and that the earth is young. Secular scientist and Christian scientist both use different methods for determining how old the earth is. For example, Secular scientist look and use the layers of rocks to help them, while Christian scientist uses the Bible and look at historical data from other cultures to help them. Doesn't looking at archeological data seem more accurate than looking at rocks? If the earth is truly billions of years old, then why is there little sediment on the sea floor? Or how can secular scientist explain finding soft tissue in a fossil if the earth is old? The most logical explanation is that the earth is young. Many people believe something just because people say that it is true, sometimes it is good to investigate for yourself and see if it is good for you.

Conflicts between faith and science go back for thousands of years, most conflicts between faith and science are found in the Bible. There are many stories in the Bible which faithful people believe in fully, but people who have a more firm belief in science see the Bible as stories which can be explained through science. A few stories from the Bible which scientists believe could be explained in ways other than just by miracles, are the creation of Earth and humans, Joshua stopping the sun, Cain being unable to grow crops, and Elisha fixing a poisoned river. Religious people believe in these and consider them miracles. However, believers in science doubt their authenticity and find ways to disprove the miracles.

In order for a person to accurately use the scientific method to gather knowledge and truth from the Bible a person should have a general Christian worldview. A Christian worldview is "any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement or religion that provides an overarching approach to understanding God, the world and man's relations to God and the world.” (Noebel, D, 1995). In a biblical worldview the word of God is infallible. The Bible is the foundation of everything Christians say and do. A person who is living in a secular worldview has beliefs filled with selfish, fallen-world ideas that seductively appeal to the desires of one’s flesh. A person with a Christian worldview already has the answer within their heart. So a person with a Christian worldview is led to look for truth within the Bible which is revealed to them through revelation. Without the proper worldview, people will be unable to find truth and knowledge within the Bible. In looking through a lens it is important to consider the lens that the material was originally created from and intended for. The scientific method will continue to remain valid, only if analogous worldviews are shared.

For most of the world's population, a disease is understood to be a physical issue, aside from mental illnesses. Viruses and bacteria are responsible for infections, tumors stem from an abnormal growth of cells, a poor diet may result in comorbidities, and so on. However, imagine a specialist explaining to you, the patient, that your symptoms of a cough, chest congestion, and fatigue are merely illusions created in the mind, to which the cure is overcoming your mental belief that you are sick at all. This alternative idea of disease and treatment comes from the religion of Christian Science, and along with its highly controversial healing practices, the church demonstrates two bioethical issues: are people seeking treatment in the church due to frustration with the current medical system, or are members afraid to seek professional medical help due to disapproval from the church? In examining these issues, first, the Christian Science doctrine must be understood, then the history surrounding the religion's creation, and finally how the two tie into today's bioethical problems.

John William Draper, in the History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, states, “The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.” John William Draper brings up a strong truth behind the progression of science. Human faith inevitably conflicts with the progression of science. One may think that religion is the moral part of human belief and science is the advancement of intellect. It is inevitable that morals and the advancement of intellect would. Emotions and morals sometimes may overpower what the advancement of science would lead to. This concept is present in the ethical controversy involved with the Catholic Church and stem cell research. The moral and heart of many members of the Catholic Church easily disables the acceptance and support of stem cell research. This is unfortunate because stem cell usage and research has tremendous potential in helping those that suffer from disease. Stem cell research will advance medical fields and assist in finding cures for deadly ailments. Many followers of the Catholic Church view the science of stem cell research as killing innocent lives, however a sense of the faithful needs to come into action in order to look passed tradition and history to

Is there a conflict between religion and science, or are both items compatible? This question is addressed in the debate that is written about in the book Science and Religion, Are they Compatible, by Daniel C. Dennett and Alvin Plantinga. Alvin Plantinga thoroughly debates the topic by covering the compatibility of Christianity and science. He continues his argument by stating the issue of naturalist and science harbor the conflict not the theism. Plantinga goes into detail how some scientific theories without the help of theism has conflict and should be considered falsifiable because of the contradictions they possess. While Alvin Plantinga does make a prominent effort to illustrate how religion and science are compatible, there are also

The common narrative surrounding science and religion is that they are contradictory. People believe science is just a way to prove religion wrong, and so far science has remarkable accuracy. But science does not work against religion, rather science defends religion, and in some cases helps create deeper understanding of religion. When questioning religion, using science can help answer questions not found in the Bible, helping to further human understanding of both science and religion, and seeing how the two can build on each other.

The relationship between religion and science is indubitably debated. Barbour describes four ways of viewing this relationship (conflict, independence, dialogue--religion explains what science cannot, and integration--religion and science overlap). Gould presents a case in which religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), that the two entities teach different things and therefore do not conflict. The subject of this essay is Worrall, who says that religion and science does conflict, and that genuine religious beliefs are incompatible with a proper scientific attitude. The former half of the essay will describe his argument, while the latter will present a criticism of his argument.

Religion and science are two subjects most would choose not to discuss in the same vicinity. History has shown how quarrelsome doing so can be. However, as history has progressed into the modern world both science and religion have become more accepted by their somewhat rival. Might this suggest, after the centuries of debate and controversy, that science and religion have somehow grown to be congruent? Perhaps not all religions, for not all religions can agree with one another, let alone science. Despite past differences, the more science and Christianity are studied and compared, some might see similarities. Ultimately, both science and Christianity very well could be attributed to one another, even if some in the two communities would beg

“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7). In Genesis God created humans from his own likeness from the dust of the ground in H.G Wells The Island of Dr. Moreau, the main character Dr. Moreau is given the perception of God as he also creates humans. He does the however through science as he uses vivisection, the live dissection of animals, to convert animals into people we call beast people. Through this creation process he brainwashes these beast people to have them believe he is as said in Revelation, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Revelation 22:13). Wells, a known atheist, pushes the limits of science vs religion; Wells argues that man 's hubris in thinking that science can replace religion will lead to their downfall. Dr. Moreau creates these beast, makes them follow his set of rules and ultimately is there judge, jury and executioner if they break it.

The study of science has been around for roughly 500 years and yet there has been no clear answer for the existence of god. Followers of God believe that science is an instrument to help up understand god, and science and Christianity are both important parts in the way we understand this world. 3 out of every 5 scientists do not believe that God exists, but the other 2 however, do believe. Science and religion are 2 of the most debated topics in the world and somehow the two could never get on the same page, sometime it evens seems that they’re on opposite ends of the spectrum. The debate I listened to from Intelligence Squared was extremely informal and presented a very distinct and good arguments. There were 4 scientists (2 were for the motion and 2 were against) who spent about 90 minutes trying to convince whether science refutes or doesn’t refute God. I believe that there is a God, however I support science because it’s calculated and can be presented to me on a piece of paper. God wasn’t the person who told us our morals, it was humans who told us how we were supposed to live our lives, and then said this is how God is interpreted. Everyone wants to believe there is life after death, and that karma exists; with that being said there’s just some things science can’t explain. But we know for sure there is an answer because there can’t be a maybe, either god exists or he doesn’t, either there is a heaven or there isn’t; there can’t be a middle. There first question you

Back in 1896 the president of Cornell University Andrew Dickson White published a book entitled A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Under White’s influence, the metaphor of “warfare” to describe the relations between science and the Christian faith became very widespread during the first half of the 20th century. The culturally dominant view in the West—even among Christians—came to be that science and Christianity are not allies in the search for truth, but adversaries.

The debate about the compatibility of science and religion has been quite ongoing for a while. Many clergy men do not believe that both institutions are in conflict with each other. In fact people have come to believe that they both complement each other. In other words, science provides an explanation where religion falters and religion provides an explanation where science falters. This argument has been used to quell inquiries into the relationship that exists

Since the beginning of time the debate between the coexistence of science and religion has been an issue within society. There are many arguments about their relationship as a whole. Such as science and religion being conflicted, lacking interaction, or being harmonious. Despite what many would assume, the two do not work against each other. Science and religion are complementary to each other and for that reason the two have majorly impacted society and humanity positively. Though there are many different aspects that could help define each, neither science nor religion has one simple or concrete definition.

In discussions of the relationship between science and religion, a controversial issue is whether science should be considered as much of a religion of say Christianity or Buddhism is. While some argue that science is factual and does not provide a basis to be a religion that should be followed, I, along with others, feel that when applied to their real life enough, scientist’s discoveries form as directions to follow to find their truth in life. I maintain this because scientist’s guidelines are similar, for example, to the commandments and lessons in the Bible that followers of Christ tend to obey. Nathanial Hawthorne’s two stories, “Rappaccini's Daughter ” and “The Birthmark” bring up the idea about how science can become a religion for the those who study it. I argue that for Aylmer and Rappaccini, the science they practice forms a religion that they use in their daily life.