[Vision2020] Creation vs. science (was NSA's accrediting agency)
london at moscow.com
Sat Dec 22 12:23:43 PST 2007
And here is my small addition to this large discussion of God versus science....
As I understand it, black holes out in space are places where the laws of physics no longer apply. Are those the portals between the rationally-understood universe and the realm of spirit?
----- Original Message -----
From: keely emerinemix
To: Paul Rumelhart ; g. crabtree
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Creation vs. science (was NSA's accrediting agency)
I hesitate to jump in on this because I'm back in the Seattle area with family and I won't be able to get to a computer as often as I'd like, but I would suggest a way to shed some light on any purported science vs. God argument. First, though, I want to assert two things: One, I believe God created the world and everything in it. Beyond that, because of my trust in the beauty and order of the world around us, I believe that true science will never contradict that assertion. Believers should embrace science, and no actual truth will ever contradict the Truth we know in God.
The streetfight appears to be between those who assert the full truth of the Bible, as read literally, and those who argue that all good science points to a conclusion that appears different from what the Bible appears to say. I would offer a third option: Perhaps the Bible isn't wrong, perhaps science isn't wrong. Maybe I'm wrong in my understanding of what each says.
I believe the message of the Bible is true in all it sets forth, when understood in the context of in the intent or formulation of a specific passage -- historical record, apocalyptic symbolism, poetry, law, personal letters of exhortation, etc. Another way to put it is this -- Religion tells me Who, Science tells me How. Could it be that the creation accounts in Genesis were written not as scientific treatises, as science seems to indicate, and instead symbolic passages used to illustrate the truth -- God created -- to non-literate peoples, both water-dependent fishermen and land-dependent shepherds? Maybe science is able only to "see through a mirror darkly," And it can only do what finite persons can do -- offer reasonable explanations for the phenomena of life and order and beauty around us. It's a sacred calling to "do science," to study what the Creator left us, and to always seek greater understanding. If it's true, it will reveal something about God. But scientists, believing and unbelieving, must work with evidence and experimentation as they present themselves; they can't start from a theological belief and bend observable truth to try to complement it. That weakens both theology and science. Likewise, believers must be content to live in a world of seeming paradox, and the tension between revealed spiritual Truth and observable material truth is nothing to be feared. The "missing link" (oops!) is the reality that both can be true and that, in the Providence of God, it will become clear. In the meantime, theologians study and scientists study, and their purported defenders make a mess out of everything. It does God no honor to deaden his word by reading into Scripture what Scripture doesn't intend to communicate, and it does science no favor to scramble like lab mice to come up with evidence tto try to disprove the existence of God.
I am neither a scientist nor a theologian, and I'm content to recognize the tension between the two without panicking that the wonders of the universe have not been revealed to me. God is still God, even (especially) in my non-understanding, and His science is still His truth -- even in my non-understanding, and even when it seems to shake that which is never, in my soul. unshakeable.
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:00:43 -0800
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> To: jampot at roadrunner.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NSA's accrediting agency is not recognized in Texas
> While it's true that scientists can be unscrupulous, fame-hungry, and/or
> greedy bastards and fudge results upon occasion, the beauty of the
> scientific method still shines through. Experiments have to be
> repeatable for just this reason. Anyone with the right training and the
> right equipment can repeat these experiments, and compare the results to
> those published by those unethical scientists.
> As for the topic of religion vs. science, I would have to say that the
> two concepts don't have to be incompatible. Scientists observe the
> world around us, which I imagine any God would want us to do. They use
> their God-given brains to look for patterns and apply logical principles
> in an attempt to understand how things work. They are, in effect,
> uncovering even more of the beauty of the world around us. The theory
> of relativity, for example, is beautiful and elegant. It brings praise
> to the Creator every time we come a little bit closer to understanding
> just how majestic this universe is.
> Science is Man's best guess at how Creation works, and because it's
> _Man's_ best guess, it's always going to be flawed. But science is a
> self-correcting mechanism, and will come closer and closer to
> approximating how the universe that God (or gods) gave us actually works
> over time. If that conflicts with any book that states that it is the
> Truth, then the book's claim should be questioned. Perhaps the
> discrepancies will work themselves out as we learn more, or perhaps the
> book wasn't claiming to be a scientific treatise in the first place.
> Science itself will self-correct over time.
> g. crabtree wrote:
> > "As if good scientists made up their own data in the laboratory!"
> > Please see:
> > http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8515
> > www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/07/68153
> > www.americanthinker.com/2006/08/fake_but_accurate_science.html
> > http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17978
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19814-2005Feb12.html
> > http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/role-of-consensus-in-science.html
> > http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=http%3A%2F%2Fchronicle.com%2Fdaily%2F2007%2F01%2F2007011002n.htm
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45611-2005Mar17.html
> > http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/10/28/mit_professor_is_fired_over_fabricated_data/
> > http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Apr-02-Sat-2005/news/26204008.html
> > Why the very notion that data might be faked by Scientists must be
> > preposterous.
> > g
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <nickgier at adelphia.net>
> > To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 3:22 PM
> > Subject: [Vision2020] NSA's accrediting agency is not recognized in Texas
> >> Greetings:
> >> Ralph Nielsen sent me this and he may want to post it here, but if he does
> >> not, here is some interesting news.
> >> First, the Transnational Association for Christian Colleges and Schools
> >> (TRACS), New St. Andrews College's accrediting agency, was founded by
> >> creationist Henry Morris; and second, TRACS is not recognized by Texas'
> >> higher education authorities. It is good to see that Texas has higher
> >> academic standards than Idaho.
> >> Here is my favorite quotation from Henry Morris: "It is better to believe
> >> in the revealed World of God than any science or philosophy devised by
> >> man." As if good scientists made up their own data in the laboratory!
> >> ICR SEEKS TO GRANT DEGREES IN TEXAS
> >> Morris explained, "The possibility of moving to Dallas surfaced when my
> >> brother, Dr. Henry Morris III, discerned that a central location would be
> >> beneficial for ICR, with several possibilities for student services at
> >> nearby affiliated colleges. The many good
> >> churches and large numbers of ICR supporters living in North Texas made it
> >> a
> >> natural fit for the ministry. When my father [Henry Morris] was still
> >> alive he
> >> approved the move to Dallas, especially as a way to strengthen the
> >> graduate school. In 2006, ICR opened a distance education effort in
> >> Dallas, as well as the hub of ICR's internet ministries. ... As
> >> additional operational functions were assigned to the new Dallas office,
> >> the Board concluded that it was in ICR's best interests to move the entire
> >> ministry."
> >> The ICR's graduate school was previously accredited by the Transnational
> >> Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), a group founded by
> >> Henry Morris; Henry Morris III presently serves on its commission. Texas
> >> does not recognize accreditation by TRACS, forcing the ICR to seek
> >> temporary state certification while it applies for accreditation from the
> >> Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). As a first step
> >> toward certification, a committee of Texas educators visited the ICR's
> >> facilities in Dallas to evaluate whether the ICR meets the legal
> >> requirements for state certification. The report described the
> >> educational program as "plausible," adding, "The proposed degree would be
> >> generally comparable to an initial master's degree in science education
> >> from
> >> one of the smaller, regional universities in the state."
> >> NCSE's Eugenie C. Scott disagreed, telling the Dallas Morning News,
> >> "It sounds like the committee may have just taken at face value what
> >> the ICR claims ... There's a huge gulf between what the ICR is doing and
> >> what
> >> they're doing at legitimate institutions like ... [the University
> >> of Texas] or Baylor." (The committee members were a librarian, an
> >> educational
> >> administrator, and a mathematician; none was professionally trained in
> >> biology, geology, or physics.) Inside Higher Ed reported (December
> >> 17, 2007), "Some science groups are aghast by the idea that Texas would
> >> authorize master's degrees in science education that are based on complete
> >> opposition to evolution and literal acceptance of the Bible. And these
> >> groups are particularly concerned because the students in these programs
> >> would be people who are or want to be school teachers."
> >> Although Patricia Nason, chair of the ICR's science education
> >> department, told the Dallas Morning News, "Our students are given both
> >> sides.
> >> They need to know both sides, and they can draw their own conclusion,"
> >> the ICR's statement of faith includes the tenet, "All things in the
> >> universe
> >> were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week
> >> described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The
> >> creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories
> >> of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false."
> >> Similarly, applicants to the ICR's graduate school are explicitly told
> >> that their answers to the essay questions on the application help to
> >> determine "your dedication to the Lord, the Word, and teaching
> >> creation science."
> >> . . .
> >> Nick Gier
> >> =======================================================
> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> http://www.fsr.net
> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> =======================================================
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. Share now!
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vision2020