Bluegrassrivals

Lerner himself is a member of the Bay Area Skeptics, and like all Skeptical groups it is essentially atheistic and anti-christian. But the BAS downplays this by the claim:
[INDENT]‘We’re absolutely not a religious or antireligious group. We respect the religious and nonreligious beliefs of others, and recognize that spirituality is based on faith and is not testable.’8[/INDENT]

The atheistic Marxist evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has claimed that religion and science are ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ (NOMA). That is, science deals with facts of the real world, while religion deals with ethics, values, morals, and what it means to be human. He expounded this thesis in his book Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (Ballantyne, NY, 1999).

However, this is based on the philosophically fallacious fact-value distinction, and is really an anti-Christian claim. For example, the Resurrection of Christ is an essential part of the Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:12–19), but it is also a matter of history, it passed the ‘testable’ claim that the tomb would be empty on the third day, and impinges on science because it demonstrated the power of God over so-called ‘natural laws’ that dead bodies decay. Christians must realise that this is not only a theoretical argument about the anti-Christian nature of NOMA, but also a practical one — Gould dismisses John’s historical narrative of Jesus’ post-Resurrection appearance to doubting Thomas as a ‘moral tale’ [Rocks of Ages, p. 14].

By contrast, please study the Arguments creationists should NOT use.

This NOMA distinction really teaches that religion is just in one’s head, which seems to dull the senses of many Christians more than an overt declaration that Christianity is false. So this is even more dangerous.

Christians should not fall for this. Christ is the Lord of the universe, and the Bible is accurate on everything it touches, not just faith and morality, but history, science and geography also. So Christians should not give up any part of the ‘real world’ to those with a materialistic agenda. Especially when atheists are happy to let their own faith influence their science, by promoting evolution.9

This applies not only to science, but to public life. It’s unfortunate to hear professing Christians who say that they won’t let their faith influence their public policy, e.g. ‘I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I won’t enforce my faith on the pregnant woman who must be given the right to choose’, although the unborn baby has no ‘choice’. However, atheists are very happy to let their own faith influence their public policy and enforce their views on people — we rarely hear: ‘I’m personally in favor of abortion, but I won’t enforce my view on the innocent unborn baby’. [For a refutation of the related fallacy that ‘you cannot/should not legislate morality’, see Dispelling false notions of the First Amendment: The Falsity, Futility, Folly Of Separating Morality From Law]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/Lerner_resp.asp

thecavemaster Wrote:I think it is unfair to pigeonhole scientists as somehow all having a "materialists agenda." The few scientific researchers that I know personally are mostly interested in the formulating and testing of theories, the pursuit of information and truth about the various things they are interested in.

But do you think it is fair to pigeonhole christians as all having a "religious agenda" when presenting the same facts but with a different view?

BaseballMan Wrote:But do you think it is fair to pigeonhole christians as all having a "religious agenda" when presenting the same facts but with a different view?

No it's not fair to pigeonhole any group with a baseless claim that they all have an agenda. But it's the few people on the fringes of each group (like the guy writing the article you quoted) that seem to create the view people have of them.

Scientist aren't out to disprove god, and all scientist aren't atheist, as your thread would imply. Scientist want to understand how life, and the universe work, which to me is just an extension of the knowledge god gave us. The bible mentions many things that science didn't discover for thousands of years.

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Scientist aren't out to disprove god, and all scientist aren't atheist, as your thread would imply. Scientist want to understand how life, and the universe work, which to me is just an extension of the knowledge god gave us. The bible mentions many things that science didn't discover for thousands of years.

Agreed. :Thumbs:

One great scientist, Louis Pasteur (pasteurization), was a noted Catholic.

Isaac Newton (theory of gravity) was Anglican

Albert Einstein (theory of relativity) was Jewish

Antoine Lavosier (father of modern Chemistry) was Catholic

James Maxwell (discovered the electro-magnetic spectrum) was Presbyterian

John Dalton (Dalton's Law) was a Quaker

Guglielmo Marconi (radio) was Catholic

Alexander Fleming (penicillin) was Catholic

William Harvey (circulation of blood) was Anglican

Gregor Mendel (Mendelian Genetics) was Catholic

Max Planck (thermodynamics) was Protestant

Joseph Lister (antispectics) was Quaker

Edward Jenner (smallpox vaccinations) was Anglican

Johannes Kepler (planetary motions) was Lutheran

Enrico Fermi (father of atom bomb) was Catholic

Gregory Pincus (developed birth-control pill) was Jewish


These are all great scientists who are not atheists, nor would I say that they had an agenda to disprove religion.

Sorry for the long post.

BaseballMan Wrote:But do you think it is fair to pigeonhole christians as all having a "religious agenda" when presenting the same facts but with a different view?

No.

Good. I agree that not all scientists are out to disprove the existence of God. I do think the best scientists are the ones who are the least bias with their discoveries, and just giving the facts. There are many non-religious scientists as well who do believe that evolution has serious holes in it, but as well, there are those that look upon evolution as religiously as Christianity or Judaism. But I'm glad we see things similarly.

BaseballMan Wrote:Good. I agree that not all scientists are out to disprove the existence of God. I do think the best scientists are the ones who are the least bias with their discoveries, and just giving the facts. There are many non-religious scientists as well who do believe that evolution has serious holes in it, but as well, there are those that look upon evolution as religiously as Christianity or Judaism. But I'm glad we see things similarly.

Very true, scientist can be swayed by a lot of different factors, which can ultimately change their "findings".

The theory of Evolution still has many questions that are unanswered, but the misinformation of the public is what gives the theory such a negative view. The basic premise of evolution is natural selection, where lifeforms most suited to survive pass on those genes, while the genes least suited for survival are ultimately cleared from the gene pool. Organisms do not change or evolve, it is a population that evolves. Although I don't agree with all of evolution, I do think that most parts of it are pretty sound. I also don't think this goes against god, the idea that over time populations of animals adapt isnt really that big of a stretch.

I know that god created the earth in six days, but how long are "days" in gods time? Since god lives outside of our known universe, who is to say what time is there? The human perception of "time" is only our perception, we cant put our laws of physics and relativity into a world from which we as humans have no knowledge of.

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Very true, scientist can be swayed by a lot of different factors, which can ultimately change their "findings".

The theory of Evolution still has many questions that are unanswered, but the misinformation of the public is what gives the theory such a negative view. The basic premise of evolution is natural selection, where lifeforms most suited to survive pass on those genes, while the genes least suited for survival are ultimately cleared from the gene pool. Organisms do not change or evolve, it is a population that evolves. Although I don't agree with all of evolution, I do think that most parts of it are pretty sound. I also don't think this goes against god, the idea that over time populations of animals adapt isnt really that big of a stretch.

I know that god created the earth in six days, but how long are "days" in gods time? Since god lives outside of our known universe, who is to say what time is there? The human perception of "time" is only our perception, we cant put our laws of physics and relativity into a world from which we as humans have no knowledge of.

Actually the perception of time is just as biblical, as God, in Genesis did His work in days, in which he called a morning and evening. He separated the days from the nights and the book of Genesis very vividly describes these days just the same as our days are numbered today. Also, in the original Hebrew text in which these scriptures were written, the very Hebrew word for day was used which was specifically referred to as a day and a night - as we know it still today. There were other words that meant longer periods of time - even words that could define an unknown amount of time, but those words are not used in that part of the book.

I believe animals, plants, humans, etc, adapt to their surroundings and the climates of their life period, but I absolutely do not believe that organisms changed from one spieces to another over millions of years. There is absolutely no evidence that supports that belief. I also believe that humans are fallible and make many mistakes - even scientists who have had what many consider wonderful knowledge and education.

Evolution does not say there is no God, but it sure does promote human nature as being greater than the nature of God - in which the very Bible itself proclaims wicked men will do. And although God does reside in Heaven, according to His word, He is still very much involved in the lives of the people of Earth. Also, according to His Word, He is not a deceiver nor a liar, and His Word is infallible - so to say that the origin account that He revealed to Moses to write is flawed or unconcluding is making God out to be a deceiver or a liar in the way He wanted it to be written.

This thread has been closed due to the following rule violations:


Posting false or incorrect information will not be tolerated. If you are unaware of something such as a score or any information regarding a certain topic, then do not post it until sure. False threads and posts will be deleted and you will be warned.

Post padding will not be tolerated. Topics are there for your view pleasure but you are not required to post something in every one that you open. If you have no real opinion or knowledge on a subject, please move on to another one.

This thread is also being closed for “spamming.” Here is why:
When you create these threads and put the links to the other sites in them, you are essentially promoting these other sites. Since you have posted the links they are now searchable through Google and in essence you are using the server space of this site to promote these other sites, which we will no longer tolerate. This is BluegrassRivals, not answersingenesis.com and we are not paying for server space to promote any of the sites that you are consistently linking to.

Please refrain from posting these type of threads in the future or alternative action will be taken in the form of suspension or ban. No one wants to read a book from some other website, if they wanted to, by now they would have gone to the site.