Add new comment


“.......the old earth reading of the Bible seems more internally consistent.”
How so? Is the bible the inerrant word of god or not? If it is then isn’t a literal construal the more appropriate. Would a god responsible for the creation of the universe and all life within, characterized by awesome precision and complexity, write a book of such ambiguity and open to personal interpretation? Why all the mystery?
“The young-earth creationists put a great deal of stock in taking Genesis for its word, and I respect that.”
If I said I believed in fairies or that the world was flat would you respect that? Surely willful ignorance doesn’t deserve respect. I respect their right to believe whatever but I wouldn’t respect their opinion.
“He must know what He’s talking about on scientific matters as well as moral ones.”
So why doesn’t his ‘word” contain one iota of scientific knowledge not known in the bronze age? Indeed, it dictates many harmful practices based on superstition rather than science.”
“But if the Bible is just the creation of men, then in the 21st century we may as well ignore it as being entirely outdated.”
Now you’re on the right track.
“So does “young vs old earth” really matter? Indeed it does, for any Christian who cares about the scientific method. For those many people who don’t care about the scientific method, and who say, “does it really matter?”, well, I’ll forgive them. I’m not so clued-up about Rembrandt or Finnish cuisine either.”
Why limit the relevance to only those christians that care about the scientific method? Surely the truth about the universe matters to everyone whether or not it is of a direct or immediate significance. An instruction manual of life supposedly written by a god surely should be factually correct in its entirety.
“Evolution, though it may be denied, has at its heart a “God is not required” axiom which directly contradicts Christianity.”
This statement is false, probably by innocent mistake rather than malice. The theory of evolution does not speak to the question of god in any way at all. It postulates that speciation of life results from the differential reproductive selective action of environmental forces. It completely explains the marvelous complexity and readily observable commonalities of all life on earth. The question of god’s role is one raised by those who require him to play a part. Simply put, evolution has no anti-god or god-is-not-required axiom. God is simply irrelevant and adds nothing to an understanding of the theory. Would you say that evolution has at its heart the axioms “fairies are not required”, “alien life forms are not required” etc.....
“Prominent atheistic evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins have preached an anti-God message for some time now, demonstrating a desire for science to make a commentary on religious matters.”
Richard Dawkins seeks to keep religion out of science. He openly acknowledges his respect for the right of all people to believe what they wish, but not the right to inflict those beliefs on others without there being credible evidence as to veracity of the belief.
“If Christians do science accurately, with an absolutely truthful conclusion, will atheistic scientists be persuaded by reason?”
Absolutely, how can there be any doubt about it. Correct application of the scientific method will result in the best explanation of the evidence. People’s opinions do not determine reality. Reality is. Many christians do very good science. The better of them do not bring god into the laboratory.
“Maybe, but I do think there is one crucial flaw in their thinking which isn’t easily overcome. That is the previously-mentioned axiom and bias: “God is not required”. It is declared on philosophical grounds: that which is supernatural by definition can’t be scientifically tested.” Therefore, God doesn’t exist.”
There is no scientific bias against god. It is true that the question of god’s actual existence has never been found to be relevant but to suggest that there exists a positive bias against god is untrue. Science only considers those factors that are relevant to the question at hand. To dismiss any possible explanation of the evidence would in itself be unscientific. However, science has never required god and by definition god is conveniently beyond scientific investigation, especially when it suits those who propose a role for this supernatural being.
“It is understandable in the most limited scope of scientific pursuit, yet illogical at the same time.”
The stated conclusion as you put it is indeed illogical, and irrational. But you have built a strawman. Rational people cannot assert the non-existence of god with absolute certainty. However, the probability of his existence is infinitesimally small so as to be negligible. His existence is irrelevant and gives no explanatory assistance to the questions science seeks to answer. You accuse the “atheistic scientist” of bias yet I believe you have it backwards. The problem I consistently encounter with my religious friends is that they start with the unquestionable belief that god exists. All evidence is interpreted with reference to the indisputable truth of god’s existence. This is bias, and exists without any credible evidence.
“The truly open-minded scientist may even test this if they are willing to extend their scientific method to consider Biblical history, archaeology and sociology.”
All has been done to death and the biblical account is a fail.
“Then make a personal commitment to test Biblical moral propositions and Biblical promises from the alleged great God who created all for an exceedingly great purpose.”
The bible is a horrific account of a maniacal god with bronze-age tribal morals. Jesus presents himself slightly better but said nothing remarkable and only repeated what had already been said by many previous and contemporary ‘prophets’.


Editor Filtered with Scriptures

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Scripture references will be linked automatically to an online Bible. E.g. John 3:16, Eph 2:8-9 (ESV).
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.