| Author | Message | ||
| Johnl Registered user Username: Johnl Post Number: 3 Registered: 2-2006  |
My 16 year old grand son is visiting all next week. He is a life long believer in creation as taught in the bible. He is concerned by some of the questions being raised in his high school science classes re evolution. I know he is questioning. I have the ICR.org and AnswersIn Genesis.org sites. Can anyone point me to any other sites which I can share with him during his visit? Thanks in advance for any help you can share. In His love, Johnl | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1204 Registered: 7-2003  |
John, I have spent quite a bit of time on both the ICR and Answers in Genesis sites. I believe the so-called "science" on these websites is embarrassingly bad. I know these are well meaning Christians doing their best to defend Christianity and the Bible, but in my personal opinion they are doing more to harm the cause then help it. I think your grandsonís science teachers would find some of the ěscienceî on these two websites more humorous than helpful. Fortunately, there are a number of very conservative creationists who hold to the inerrancy of scripture and who are doing very good science. I would highly recommend the work of astronomer Hugh Ross. Dr. Rossís website can be found here: REASONS TO BELIEVE. Chris | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 152 Registered: 7-2005  |
John, Here is an excellent site which has a special manner of attacking the evolution, and defending the creation. I recommend you to read the book Why won't They Listen? Shortly, the idea is to show that evolution is not science but religion, it's a faith. No scientist was present at the beginning of the world, and no experiment can reproduce in laboratory the beginning of our world. The same proofs can be used for sustaining evolution or creation, but analyzing the premises can really demolsih evolution. Because the real force of evolution stand in it's pretence to be scientifycally proved, that evolution is science, and christianity is belief. This makes the christian to appear like someone who is naive, who prefer to believe in myths which in the modern world are no more valuable than junk. But if evolution is just another faith, the whole pictures changes. | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 190 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hello John, I haven't read much on this area for a while, but I looked into it when I first got saved, as I was studying science at university at that time. Here are a couple of sites I liked - they still exist, I have checked. Creation-Evolution Headlines http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200604.htm This is quite scientific, and reviews a lot of current publications. It also contains a "Baloney Detector," which is a study of the techniques used to lead people astray. It is quite funny as well as very useful for spotting propaganda and logical fallacies. Many of the examples used are from politics or science, but the same information is useful for examining the claims made by cults. The other is: True Origin Archive http://www.trueorigin.org/ Hope these are of some help, God bless, Adrian | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 290 Registered: 6-2001  |
This is a good site: http://www.discovery.org/ It happens to be based in Seattle, and it gets quoted in the paper time and again. Discovering, Hannah | ||
| Leigh Registered user Username: Leigh Post Number: 81 Registered: 2-2003 |
I liked the book "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. I especially liked his chapters on the creation of the universe and the Big Bang theory. Here is another website that I like. Not an apologetic website, but "a picture paints a thousand words!" http://hubblesite.org/gallery/ "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handywork." Ps. 19:1 | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 645 Registered: 4-2000  |
Leigh, Thanks for the link. I just bookmarked this hubble site that has hundreds of pictures showing colorful, spectucular nebula, stars, galaxies, planets, moons, explosions, storms, clouds, etc. Wow, the pictures are extraordinary and make me feel very small. Indeed, the heavens show the handiwork of our Creator. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1151 Registered: 10-2004  |
Chris, Could you please give some concrete examples of what you mean by "embarrassingly bad" science? While everything they say may not be totally accurate, I think they are doing a great job of defending the Bible, using real science. I don't think it is fair to make such a broad accusation, saying that all of the science on those two sites is "embarrassingly bad," without giving any examples to back up that claim. It is my understanding that they employ real scientists with Ph.D.'s who are even published in genuine science journals, etc. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 03, 2006) | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1207 Registered: 7-2003 |
Jeremy, as I said I think they are sincere and I certainly appreciate their zeal to defend the innerrency of scripture, creation ex nihilo, and the Genesis account of creation. I strongly affirm all three of these things as well. I however, think that there are way too many problems with their science to serve as a true Christian aplogetic. We want to make strong cases based on good hermeneutics and solid evidence. When we take dubious biblical interpretations and try to tweak the science to make our disputable biblical interpretation fit, we are on shaky ground. You and I may disagree here, but I believe it doesn't serve our case well when we go into classrooms with theories that aren't solid. Rather than list a whole litany of items that I think lack scientific credibility, let me just mention one really big one that I think drastically undermines much else that they are attempting to do: I do not think their view of startlight and time will stand up to scrutiny. I hope it is understood that in questioning the validity of someone's scientific method I am not making a personal attack on a brother or sister in Christ in any way shape or form. Far from it. I can say their science is bad and still be united with them as Christian brothers. These are the kind of non-essentials that we can vigorously debate, but we don't need to divide over. Chris | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 107 Registered: 2-2006 |
For what it's worth, I, too, like Dr. Hugh Ross, the astrophysicist, for Genesis Science. He goes against the 1950's Biblical teachers on the subject, at times, but we have discovered much more science since then. And he is much better educated than they were. If I can find one book I have of his, I will post the title, but it is a heavy one. Through the years, I have found that the Bible is full of scientific treasures, if one looks; and both back each other up, as new discoveries in astronomy, biology/genetics and quantum physics are made (in all genres of the sciences, including archeology). We just know so little and discover more and more. No scientist can say they know it all. If they do, they are full of themselves. More and more scientists are turning from athieism to a 'First Cause' Intelligence; at the least, agnosticism, if not a creator, for some, in the past decade. God bless you, John and your son, as you discover Biblical scientific truth! It is fascinating!!! I have teens and a 9 y/o to teach all the time. This subject is one reason I homeschool. The schools are very liberal and over-bearing here.(Not that I am saying everyone should HS) I must refute what they hear, constantly. Cathy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1152 Registered: 10-2004 |
I agree that it is not something to divide over. But I do think that the underlying issue is an important one, and that is the authority of Scripture. Why should our interpretation of Scripture have to change to match "current science"? Our interpretation of the Bible should be able to be the same, whether we are in the first century, or 1950, or 2006. If the Bible is really the foundational and final authority, and if it is really God's Word, then we should be able to take it as it reads and believe it. We shouldn't have to keep changing our interpretation to match an extra-Biblical, fallible, and ever-changing source. The Bible contains the unchanging truth. If we try to make the Bible fit with man's theories and opinions--then we are doing the exact same thing the cults do: taking an extra-Biblical authority over the plain words of Scripture. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on April 03, 2006) | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1208 Registered: 7-2003 |
When the Church, based on certain individuals' intepretation of biblical passages, condemned Copernicus for teaching that the earth wasn't stationary or the center of the universe, it was not the Bible that was wrong, but man's intepretation of the Bible that was wrong. The Bible is inerrant, our interpretations are not. God has revealed himself through general revelation (nature) and special revelation (the Bible). I believe that when rightly understood and interpreted there will be no conflict because both are accurate and true revealations of the Creator. Chris | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 109 Registered: 2-2006 |
I think I am agreeing with Chris. Humanity gets science wrong, not the Bible. Galileo was another example. Awed by God's creation, even though flawed by entropy because of the Fall~ Cathy | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 191 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hi, I think I basically agree with both Chris and Jeremy here, in principle, but there is a lot of "interpretation" going on all the time in both fields, science and theology. The facts obtained from scientific experiment and observation need to interpreted, as does the Biblical text. I am sure there is fundamentally no conflict as far as the facts are concerned, because there can only be one "truth." Issues can end up getting very complex though. And everyone interprets both the Bible and scientific observation based on their own preconceived ideas, it's pretty well unavoidable. Even if it involves rationalising away huge amounts of data that don't fit. God can and does help us to change our ideas, but sometimes it takes a long time. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1209 Registered: 7-2003 |
Adrian, you make very good points. In any given case, here are the two possibilites: POSSIBLE 1) Our understanding of general revelation (nature) may be wrong. 2) Our intepretation of special revelation (scripture) may be wrong. Either one or both of the problems described above may be factors. However, there is ultimate objective truth and that ultimate truth is proclaimed in both general and special revelation. Therefore the following are impossiblities: IMPOSSIBLE 1) General revelation (nature) lies. 2) Special revelation (spripture) is in error. Neither one of these last two options is acceptable in a Christian world view because both general and special revelation are accurate and true revelations of the creator. Chris | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 192 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hi Chris, I agree with what you have said above. Neither the facts of science nor the Biblical revelation lie, though both scientists and theologians may do so, or make mistakes, to give people the benefit of the doubt. (grin) I don't believe that "general revelation" should be placed on the same level as special revelation, however. As far as I can remember, the Bible does not teach that nature or human reason should be consulted as a source of truth. There is indication that the existence of nature points to the existence of a creator, but that is about all. I have read a lot of the articles at Creation - Evolution Headlines, the site I posted above, and though I have not worked as a scientist for around 10 years now, their scientific viewpoint seems quite acceptable for me. These guys are young-earth creationists, and their approach just seems to be the most believable to me, both scientifically and theologically. I talk to young people that I teach (English) about this occasionally, and many of them are fully aware of the fact that evolution is not scientific, even though they do not want to hear the gospel. Maybe times are changing. Anyway, sorry for the ramble, Adrian | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1210 Registered: 7-2003 |
Well, I think we can at least agree that the Darwinian theory of evolution is not viable either scientifically or theologically. I think that is the most important fact for Christians to be unified on. Chris | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 194 Registered: 2-2003 |
Amen to that Chris! |
