There is no "belief" in science. There are facts, hypothesis, theories and experiments.
If you think science involves belief, then you don't understand it. Just like religion and "facts" - no connection.
Can You Believe in Science and Religion?
SodaHead News
2011/08/17 11:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
461 votes
|
|
77% | |||
|
98 votes
|
|
16% | |||
|
39 votes
|
|
7% | |||
Can you be a religion professor at a Christian school and still believe in science? Apparently not.
Which might explain why after 25 years at Michigan's Calvin College, religion professor John Schneider decided to step down after causing a furor over his scholarly paper that raised questions about the traditional, literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve and the fall of humanity out of Eden.
According to Inside Higher Ed, the trouble began in January when Schneider and another Calvin professor wrote papers suggesting that "evidence of genetics and evolution raised questions" about the Genesis story.
Though evolutionary theory is no spring chicken, Schneider claimed in his report that recent breakthroughs in genetic research have strengthened the evidence for evolution and raised specific questions about Genesis. What many people commented on was Schneider's doubt that there were just two original humans, but instead a much larger group of early Adams and Eves.
Keep in mind, neither professor was disavowing the role of God or the church, but readers of the Christian Reformed Church of North America's publication, "The Banner," were clear in their reaction to the paper: no thanks.
"To protect the church and college from false teachers and contrary orthodox beliefs it would be right to let these guys go," read one comment. "Clearly, professors who deny the scriptures as interpreted by our creeds and who have broken the promise they made when they signed the Form of Subscription should be fired," another reader claimed.
Those kind of comments were also sent to college officials, who investigated the two professors. Tenured Prof. Schneider stepped down, while the other instructor, Daniel Harlow, refuses to back down from his views. Orthodox Christian Schneider said the decision to leave after a quarter century was mutual because he didn't want the tensions caused by his writings to be a "harm and distraction" to the university.
Calvin's mission statement makes clear its expectations of faculty member, requiring that they affirm that "the Bible is the authoritative, Spirit-breathed Word of God, fully reliable," and that "God, the almighty creator of a good world, is sovereign over all of creation, granting to human beings, made in his image, the responsibility of caring for this world."
Which might explain why after 25 years at Michigan's Calvin College, religion professor John Schneider decided to step down after causing a furor over his scholarly paper that raised questions about the traditional, literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve and the fall of humanity out of Eden.
According to Inside Higher Ed, the trouble began in January when Schneider and another Calvin professor wrote papers suggesting that "evidence of genetics and evolution raised questions" about the Genesis story.
Though evolutionary theory is no spring chicken, Schneider claimed in his report that recent breakthroughs in genetic research have strengthened the evidence for evolution and raised specific questions about Genesis. What many people commented on was Schneider's doubt that there were just two original humans, but instead a much larger group of early Adams and Eves.
Keep in mind, neither professor was disavowing the role of God or the church, but readers of the Christian Reformed Church of North America's publication, "The Banner," were clear in their reaction to the paper: no thanks.
"To protect the church and college from false teachers and contrary orthodox beliefs it would be right to let these guys go," read one comment. "Clearly, professors who deny the scriptures as interpreted by our creeds and who have broken the promise they made when they signed the Form of Subscription should be fired," another reader claimed.
Those kind of comments were also sent to college officials, who investigated the two professors. Tenured Prof. Schneider stepped down, while the other instructor, Daniel Harlow, refuses to back down from his views. Orthodox Christian Schneider said the decision to leave after a quarter century was mutual because he didn't want the tensions caused by his writings to be a "harm and distraction" to the university.
Calvin's mission statement makes clear its expectations of faculty member, requiring that they affirm that "the Bible is the authoritative, Spirit-breathed Word of God, fully reliable," and that "God, the almighty creator of a good world, is sovereign over all of creation, granting to human beings, made in his image, the responsibility of caring for this world."
Top Opinion
-
Bastion 2011/08/17 13:30:35
Okay, that kind of pisses me off. I've gone to Catholic schools my entire life, and religion teachers never day anything against science, and the same goes for the science teachers. And even of they did, it really wouldnt natter much. Oh course, Catholics don't take the Bible so literally, so I suppose that helps. Also, to be honest, I believe in science more than religion. I may have been raised Catholic, but I'm Agnostic. Plus, I'm studying to be an archaeologist. So science is really more my thing.
It is significant that two of the greatest scientists in history believed in God, or the presence of a "superior reasoning power," as Albert Einstein put it:
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” The Quotable Einstein, p. 161, citing New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955
“It is agreed that the supreme God necessarily exists, and by the same necessity he is always and everywhere. . . . He totally lacks any body and corporeal shape, and so he cannot be seen or heard or touched, nor ought he to be worshiped in the form...
It is significant that two of the greatest scientists in history believed in God, or the presence of a "superior reasoning power," as Albert Einstein put it:
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” The Quotable Einstein, p. 161, citing New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955
“It is agreed that the supreme God necessarily exists, and by the same necessity he is always and everywhere. . . . He totally lacks any body and corporeal shape, and so he cannot be seen or heard or touched, nor ought he to be worshiped in the form of something corporeal. . . . We know him only by his properties and attributes and by the wisest and best construction of things and their final causes, and we admire him because of his perfections; but we venerate and worship him because of his dominion. . . . All the diversity of created things, each in its place and time, could only have arisen from the ideas and the will of a necessarily existing being.” Isaac Newton, The Principia – Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, General Scholium, pp. 942-943
It is also significant that these words from Isaac Newton, affirming his belief that God "necessarily exists", were written in his epic "Mathematical Principals of Natural Philosophy," which Stephen Hawking has called the greatest scientific work in history.
As long as they leave their imaginary friend out of the equation, I don't see why someone of religion couldn't be a benefit to a scientific field
Progress and refinements are constantly being made. True religion should also search for the truth constantly. I respect scientists who do the same
I'm a Christian person from a large Christian family with many religious friends and acquaintances. I haven't met another believer YET who has unquestioning belief in EVERY single rule and principle of their church's doctrine. If you knew anything about religion you would know that it is a very personal thing and each believer finds his/her own level of conviction.
So does that mean if you are a scientist who attests to ALL of the scientific theories and will defend them against the bible.... but believes that somehow it all originates from intelligent design..... does that disqualify you from being a "true scientist"?
Now, I'm attending a wonderful church that does not dictate HOW you feel you should worship God, only that you should. "Doctrine" is direct from the Bible! I've noticed a huge lack of bickering and squabbles that often occur around churches.
Regarding your last paragraph, I don't believe a "true scientist" has to "defend" his or her findings against the Bible. At least, if he or she is also a "true Christian" it will be unnecessary because there are no real conflicts that I've ever heard anyone speak of. Just frequent mis-interpretations that cause confusion.
To note, it is amazing this is still happening in the US. Denying evolution in favor of ancient mythology is seriously strange to me. This school, that can do whatever it wants as a private institution, is losing a good teacher. Their problem, not mine.
No, it was the cornerstone of the article posted for this question. I did not bring it up out of thin air.
Yes. Genetic research has furthered and solidified the theory of evolution. It did this quite a while ago, however.
Like what?
Oh goodness... I see you know nothing of biology. Your statement here is nonsensical, because humans ARE apes. By a very long, very precise definition. Cannot be changed.
Sure would! We'll be waiting...
And you are right. I'm not a biology major, but I read quite a bit and am good at listening! What I started to write was that man and today's great apes both descended from a COMMON ancestor - we are not a descendant directly of the apes.
As I understood a recent conversation, the issue with cell structure came about when they tried to extract a human mother's DNA from an egg. The triggers (no, I don't recall the scientific name for these little bits of direction to our cells) are destroyed by the extraction process and so they can't be cloned. Great apes share this unique quirk. Other animals' - included in those tests - DNA did not lose this factor and could, therefore, be cloned.
One of the scientists involved - who was discussing this - seemed to feel that this could changes something about evolution. And no, again, I'm not a biologist and haven't a clue what, or why he felt that was a possibility... I was really hoping that someone here would also have seen similar information and could explain it clearly.
Sort of correct. The first part is spot on. The second part is still a little fuzzy.
To be clear, humans are apes. By definition. We merely share a common ancestor with the OTHER ape species we still alive today. Also to note, the word "ape" is not the name of a species of animal. It is the name of a parent GROUP of animals, of which humans are most certainly included.
With that said, if you meant "we are not descendants of the other ape species we still see alive today", then yes. You are correct. We are not the spawn of Gorillas or Chimpanzees, we merely share a very distant, but common ancestor with them. Spot on again (I "believe" this is what you meant, just making sure).
We find new information that hones certain portions of biology and the very encompassing theory itself almost daily. It is wonderful, and how science works. These new finds, however, have been only solidifying the fact of evolution for over 150 years. Through dozens of scientific fields of study, it has all pointed to the same conclusion. It is crystal clear.
Thank you for the neat biological find. I guarantee it will not alter the general theory in any way but will help our understanding in this one corner of biology (egg DNA retraction issues in apes, etc...). Neat at any rate and will attempt to search for it later.
Thank you.
Something my graduate adviser told me -- you will need to reconcile your faith with the truths you learn here. Faith should never cause you to be blind to the truth.
Definely can't prove Him wrong, never have and never will.