We often feel as Christians that we need to defend our faith by developing scientific arguments to combat science. Dr. Mohler is correct, these are two totally separate disciplines. We have science that develops models to explain their observations. These models are in constant state of flux, and it is well known throughout the scientific community that the models are not even accurate, they are models that “fit”. The models are developed my man (a sinful mortal creature) that explain their world (a very limited mortal view of the world). This doesn’t cross over into religion and Christians need to stop wasting energy trying to develop more and more scientific arguments to combat evolution. It is futile in my opinion. Genesis 1 is Truth. It will never, ever change, and it was created by an omnipotent God who needs no models or explanations.
For the most part a good article, but I would caution his words on tying evolution and science. Science is not a belief based on faith as is stated by the author, but it is a consensus based on evidence. Evolution is as the author states a belief based on faith. Science and evolution are not equal.
I’m still laughing about the use of that phrase. Just 40 years ago, “settled science” told us the Earth was getting cooler, and there were even suggestions that we humans may need to melt the polar ice caps to correct or at least delay the unrelenting approach of Global Cooling.
That was just in my lifetime. I’m sure there are other examples.
If you don’t know what this is, it is the current “scientific” consensus on how life originated on Earth. The unregenerate mind would rather believe that aliens (think: “ET”) deposited life on the Earth than believe in God the Creator! (This begs the question of how the supposed aliens originated, but this doesn’t seem to deter its proponents.)
For the most part a good article, but I would caution his words on tying evolution and science. Science is not a belief based on faith as is stated by the author, but it is a consensus based on evidence. Evolution is as the author states a belief based on faith. Science and evolution are not equal.
I would agree that science is not faith. But to further clarify your point, it is actually “based around consensus of models that best explain or fit the evidence”. When new evidence is found, the models have to change. Those models are published and argued amongst peers, when a majority of qualified peers agree with the model, then it becomes “established science” for that moment. The moment the evidence changes, the cycle starts all over again. Many models are known to have significant gaps in them. And that is fine, because the model is not meant to explain or fit every scenario. It is only meant to explain or fit the scenario that you are dealing with or need a solution to. Sometimes you have two models that explain the same evidence, but fit it in different ways in order to help explain other elements. Photons of light use to be treated as both a wave and a particle. Quantum mechanics further capitalized on this to create further models that explain this duality. There are some models that are fully correct in explaining a photon as a particle and other ones as a wave. Both are right, but neither explain each other, nor do they cover all of the holes.
Science itself is a constant evolving field of never ending models. In many cases these models converge, but no one asks the broader (since man’s view is highly limiting) on whether we even understand or have even been able to observe the much larger elements to see if the models that we have built that in some cases are converging, even understand the evidence they are looking at. All of this flies in the total face of religion, which emphasizes an absolute Truth, that neither changes nor is up for interpretation by man. Yet so many Christians are so intent on trying to make these two items fit each other, that in the end they do both a disservice.
Discussion
NewThis article is dead-on!
This article is dead-on!
We often feel as Christians that we need to defend our faith by developing scientific arguments to combat science. Dr. Mohler is correct, these are two totally separate disciplines. We have science that develops models to explain their observations. These models are in constant state of flux, and it is well known throughout the scientific community that the models are not even accurate, they are models that “fit”. The models are developed my man (a sinful mortal creature) that explain their world (a very limited mortal view of the world). This doesn’t cross over into religion and Christians need to stop wasting energy trying to develop more and more scientific arguments to combat evolution. It is futile in my opinion. Genesis 1 is Truth. It will never, ever change, and it was created by an omnipotent God who needs no models or explanations.
NewFor the most part a good
For the most part a good article, but I would caution his words on tying evolution and science. Science is not a belief based on faith as is stated by the author, but it is a consensus based on evidence. Evolution is as the author states a belief based on faith. Science and evolution are not equal.
New"Settled Science"
I’m still laughing about the use of that phrase. Just 40 years ago, “settled science” told us the Earth was getting cooler, and there were even suggestions that we humans may need to melt the polar ice caps to correct or at least delay the unrelenting approach of Global Cooling.
That was just in my lifetime. I’m sure there are other examples.
New"Directed Panspermia":
If you don’t know what this is, it is the current “scientific” consensus on how life originated on Earth. The unregenerate mind would rather believe that aliens (think: “ET”) deposited life on the Earth than believe in God the Creator! (This begs the question of how the supposed aliens originated, but this doesn’t seem to deter its proponents.)
Newpaynen wrote:
I would agree that science is not faith. But to further clarify your point, it is actually “based around consensus of models that best explain or fit the evidence”. When new evidence is found, the models have to change. Those models are published and argued amongst peers, when a majority of qualified peers agree with the model, then it becomes “established science” for that moment. The moment the evidence changes, the cycle starts all over again. Many models are known to have significant gaps in them. And that is fine, because the model is not meant to explain or fit every scenario. It is only meant to explain or fit the scenario that you are dealing with or need a solution to. Sometimes you have two models that explain the same evidence, but fit it in different ways in order to help explain other elements. Photons of light use to be treated as both a wave and a particle. Quantum mechanics further capitalized on this to create further models that explain this duality. There are some models that are fully correct in explaining a photon as a particle and other ones as a wave. Both are right, but neither explain each other, nor do they cover all of the holes.
Science itself is a constant evolving field of never ending models. In many cases these models converge, but no one asks the broader (since man’s view is highly limiting) on whether we even understand or have even been able to observe the much larger elements to see if the models that we have built that in some cases are converging, even understand the evidence they are looking at. All of this flies in the total face of religion, which emphasizes an absolute Truth, that neither changes nor is up for interpretation by man. Yet so many Christians are so intent on trying to make these two items fit each other, that in the end they do both a disservice.