Pastor Rick Bayers, Canyon Creek Christian Fellowship
Canada’s science and technology minister, Gary Goodyear is in hot water. According to Tuesday’s Globe and Mail cover story, he wouldn’t confirm his belief in evolution during the interview. He later stated that he did believe in evolution.
The original article and the nature of the debate are appalling. A man’s personal belief becomes the centre of the controversy instead of the more important issue of why the cutbacks in science funding.
How can his job performance be evaluated by whether he believes in a spontaneous big bang or that God pulled the trigger?
The scientific community had to wade into the debate. Brian Alters, founder and director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University in Montreal, was quoted in the Globe article as being “shocked” by the minister’s comments. He compared believing in a creator with believing the world is flat.
Wrong. We know the world is not flat. This can be proven. What happened billions of years ago involving amino acids, lightning, asteroids and anything else or anyone else becomes a matter of hypothesis and theory.
Both science and religion have been known to overstep their boundaries. The church was guilty of giving the right foot of fellowship to scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo because their views threatened the church. Sometimes Christians today overstep their boundaries when they try and make the Bible say something that the author didn’t intend it to say.
Science oversteps its boundaries when it attempts to answer questions it has no answer for. The scientific method, developed by the practising Christian, Francis Bacon, deals with facts and that which can be observed with the five senses.
Science can give us theories about the world’s origins as can religion. Science oversteps its boundaries when it moves to the 6th sense and becomes philosophy of science stated as science.
Remember the movie Contact, starring Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey? McConaughey’s character asks the scientist played by Foster, “did you love your father?” After Foster’s affirmative response, he asks her to prove it. Some things just can’t be proven.
I’m tired of this issue being just presented with just the either/or option. You are a person of faith or of science. You believe in creation or evolution. It’s often presented as oil and water that can’t mix.
There are over 300,000 known varieties of beetles. Either evolution is real or God must be innately fond of beetles. Or perhaps both.
Science and faith can co-exist as allies instead of enemies. They are after all, answering different questions. Science is answering the what, when and how questions. Faith is answering the why question. Why are we here, what is our purpose for living.
For that, I need more than just a lab coat, an experiment, and a hypothesis.
Related posts:
- KNOWLDGE IS THE KEY TO PERSONAL WEALTH CREATION Tammy Johnston of The Financial Guides With New Year’s Eve...
- CREATION CARE: BOW RIVER CLEAN UP Pastor Rick Bayers, Canyon Creek Christian Fellowship On Wednesday it...
- SCHOOLS SHOULD HELP STUDENTS DEBATE, THINK ABOUT EXISTENCE OF GOD Dale Wallace As a public school teacher, one of my...
- NEW ALBERTA LAW WILL NOT SERVE STUDENTS' BEST INTERESTS Dale Wallace It appears the Alberta government is about to...
- BECOME A HUMAN LIE DETECTOR – HOW TO CATCH YOUR "TIGER WOODS" IN A FIB Faith Wood, Inspiring Minds Consulting In the light of the...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I have two prolbems with Pastor Bayers’s arguements. He maintains that science should stick to the facts and that the scientific ideas of creation of earth are based on thories. However, in science all new ideas are thories and scientists then work to prove or disprove the idea. Over a long period of time, if the idea is consistently proved it is then taken as fact. So if scientists took Pastor Bayers’s advise and just stuck to facts there would be no new scientific discoveries. We wouldn’t have insulin, be unable to build as high as the CN Tower, and still would be believing the world was flat. As well, is not the creationists ideas that God created the earth and universe no more than a theory? Creationists ask humans to set aside science and rational thought and instead believe something that was suppossedly communicated by God to man and then simply written down. What this argument boils down to is that humans simply must have faith that God exists and that he/she created the universe. For centuries mankind prayed and had faith that we would have a cure for disease, but it wasn’t until mankind actually used science to find disease cures that we got the cures. Maybe it is wiser to use science to try to find out how we came to be rather than relying on simple faith?
I have two prolbems with Pastor Bayers’s arguements. He maintains that science should stick to the facts and that the scientific ideas of creation of earth are based on thories. However, in science all new ideas are thories and scientists then work to prove or disprove the idea. Over a long period of time, if the idea is consistently proved it is then taken as fact. So if scientists took Pastor Bayers’s advise and just stuck to facts there would be no new scientific discoveries. We wouldn’t have insulin, be unable to build as high as the CN Tower, and still would be believing the world was flat. As well, is not the creationists ideas that God created the earth and universe no more than a theory? Creationists ask humans to set aside science and rational thought and instead believe something that was suppossedly communicated by God to man and then simply written down. What this argument boils down to is that humans simply must have faith that God exists and that he/she created the universe. For centuries mankind prayed and had faith that we would have a cure for disease, but it wasn’t until mankind actually used science to find disease cures that we got the cures. Maybe it is wiser to use science to try to find out how we came to be rather than relying on simple faith?
Interesting points Dale. This is exactly the kind of debate and dialogue I was hoping for. Civilized conversations about the great questions that confront us all are both entertaining and engaging. I hope Pastor Rick and/or Justin reply to Dale’s arguments….as well as anyone else who feels strongly about either side of the debate.
Interesting points Dale. This is exactly the kind of debate and dialogue I was hoping for. Civilized conversations about the great questions that confront us all are both entertaining and engaging. I hope Pastor Rick and/or Justin reply to Dale’s arguments….as well as anyone else who feels strongly about either side of the debate.
Dale:
You raise some good points. My qualm is when the line between science and philosophy of science gets blurred. I am all for science. In fact modern science had its origins in the Judeo-Christian world view. I disagree with your division between using science to investigate the earth’s origins or “simple faith”. I think we can use both. Will we know with 100% certainty? Of course not. But we all will exercise faith in something.
Dale:
You raise some good points. My qualm is when the line between science and philosophy of science gets blurred. I am all for science. In fact modern science had its origins in the Judeo-Christian world view. I disagree with your division between using science to investigate the earth’s origins or “simple faith”. I think we can use both. Will we know with 100% certainty? Of course not. But we all will exercise faith in something.
Rick: I’m not sure exactly what you are meaning by the Philosphy of Science? In my view the difference between science and and theology is that science makes new discoveries. New ideas are are thought of (a theory) and then research and experiments are done to see if the idea is true. Over time and after many other scientists have come up with the same results, then the idea is taken as a fact. In theology there are no new ideas. When we study theology we go back to the various holy books and take them as the truth. We can perhaps interpret them slightly differently, but there is nothing basically new. There is nothing wrong with these two ways of being, they are just different. So to me a new scientific new idea is a philosophical thought. Before DNA was discovered, Watson’s and Crick’s idea of DNA was as much philosopical as the big bang. They were able to do experiments and eventually found it to be true; if their experiemts didn’t turn out they would have had to come up with some other philosophical thought on DNA and tried to prove that. Right now the Big Bang is a philosophical thought and scientists are attempting to prove or disprove it.
Rick: I’m not sure exactly what you are meaning by the Philosphy of Science? In my view the difference between science and and theology is that science makes new discoveries. New ideas are are thought of (a theory) and then research and experiments are done to see if the idea is true. Over time and after many other scientists have come up with the same results, then the idea is taken as a fact. In theology there are no new ideas. When we study theology we go back to the various holy books and take them as the truth. We can perhaps interpret them slightly differently, but there is nothing basically new. There is nothing wrong with these two ways of being, they are just different. So to me a new scientific new idea is a philosophical thought. Before DNA was discovered, Watson’s and Crick’s idea of DNA was as much philosopical as the big bang. They were able to do experiments and eventually found it to be true; if their experiemts didn’t turn out they would have had to come up with some other philosophical thought on DNA and tried to prove that. Right now the Big Bang is a philosophical thought and scientists are attempting to prove or disprove it.
Not long ago I was outside of my work waiting for a bus to pick me up. A friend and coworker walked by and noticed I was reading a book titled ‘The Tangible Kingdom’ and questioned me why I would read such a book. After explaining to him that I was a pastor he jumped with enthusiasm saying, “Really?! I never took you as being a particularly religious person!”
And then came the questions; “So you believe in God then?”
“Yes I do.” I responded.
“Do you believe in Jesus?” he asked.
“Yes.” I answered with a little bit of hesitation and internal wondering where he was going to take this conversation. Before I could question him on his own intentions he quickly threw out his next question… “Do you believe in Aliens?”
I must admit to being a little thrown back by the question. It’s not exactly your normal everyday conversations which make you contemplate faith and the vastness of space. I quickly hashed my thoughts in my brain in that moment. If I say no then I will be deemed a fundamental creationist, judged irrational with no liberal freedom, and banished from any sense of acknowledgement to intelligent dialogue. If I say yes then I am just a kooky, science fictional “Star Trek” lover, who probably leads some whacked out cult!
I must admit to contemplating the realities in which we treat the idea and existence of Truth in our culture. Is it objective or subjective? And how does it relate to religion and science? It seems that in the mind set of my friend religion or faith is based on a creed, doctrine, or traditionalism set out by a denomination or organizational affiliation which is stated to be a fact or truth. Perhaps he is right in some cases of fundamental ideology but that is not what faith is; at least that is not what faith is to me. Faith is a holistic approach to our relationship to Truth as it encounters culture, context, tradition, and the crux of what it means to be human. This is something which encompasses not just the beliefs and formation or religious ecclesiology but also transfigures the practices and foci of science.
I often think of truth in the image of a prism. Truth is a white light fragmented into a million different colors, shapes, and sizes. Each color being a conception whether it is religion, science, or philosophy which resembles some part of the original whole. It is when we are willing to look beyond our own rigid borders and ideologies that we might recognize a relationship we have with not just each other in experiential subjective truth but, the source we embody or resemble in the white light of objective Truth. We can leave the conversation of whom or what the prism is for another time.
As for my friend who wondered if I believed in aliens I simply said, “I don’t know if there are aliens or not. But, if there are I believe God loves them just as he does the rest of his creation.”
I might also ask the question though; if evolution is about a truth that constant change is always plausible then is it not logical to assume that scientific fact has the plausibility of changing?
Not long ago I was outside of my work waiting for a bus to pick me up. A friend and coworker walked by and noticed I was reading a book titled ‘The Tangible Kingdom’ and questioned me why I would read such a book. After explaining to him that I was a pastor he jumped with enthusiasm saying, “Really?! I never took you as being a particularly religious person!”
And then came the questions; “So you believe in God then?”
“Yes I do.” I responded.
“Do you believe in Jesus?” he asked.
“Yes.” I answered with a little bit of hesitation and internal wondering where he was going to take this conversation. Before I could question him on his own intentions he quickly threw out his next question… “Do you believe in Aliens?”
I must admit to being a little thrown back by the question. It’s not exactly your normal everyday conversations which make you contemplate faith and the vastness of space. I quickly hashed my thoughts in my brain in that moment. If I say no then I will be deemed a fundamental creationist, judged irrational with no liberal freedom, and banished from any sense of acknowledgement to intelligent dialogue. If I say yes then I am just a kooky, science fictional “Star Trek” lover, who probably leads some whacked out cult!
I must admit to contemplating the realities in which we treat the idea and existence of Truth in our culture. Is it objective or subjective? And how does it relate to religion and science? It seems that in the mind set of my friend religion or faith is based on a creed, doctrine, or traditionalism set out by a denomination or organizational affiliation which is stated to be a fact or truth. Perhaps he is right in some cases of fundamental ideology but that is not what faith is; at least that is not what faith is to me. Faith is a holistic approach to our relationship to Truth as it encounters culture, context, tradition, and the crux of what it means to be human. This is something which encompasses not just the beliefs and formation or religious ecclesiology but also transfigures the practices and foci of science.
I often think of truth in the image of a prism. Truth is a white light fragmented into a million different colors, shapes, and sizes. Each color being a conception whether it is religion, science, or philosophy which resembles some part of the original whole. It is when we are willing to look beyond our own rigid borders and ideologies that we might recognize a relationship we have with not just each other in experiential subjective truth but, the source we embody or resemble in the white light of objective Truth. We can leave the conversation of whom or what the prism is for another time.
As for my friend who wondered if I believed in aliens I simply said, “I don’t know if there are aliens or not. But, if there are I believe God loves them just as he does the rest of his creation.”
I might also ask the question though; if evolution is about a truth that constant change is always plausible then is it not logical to assume that scientific fact has the plausibility of changing?
Erik: To answer your last question – yes. Scientific fact changes. In fact when a theory is eventually taken as fact, it is always with the understanding that the socalled fact might be disproved in the future. Scientists rarely say that something is 100% true. Take gravity, if suddenly someone observed a car floating in the air here on earth, scientists would have to go back to the drawing board and relook at gravitational theory. In medicine being homosexual was considered a mental illness until about 1970, and then because of research and advancement in medical thinking, changes happened.
I suspect your coworker was getting at the lack of rationality in religion as compared to science, although he might have been doing it with bad manners. Scientists, and others, often criticize religion for it’s lack of rationality. Take an idea like the flood. For a flood to totally encompass the world there would be enomous amounts of evidence left behind. Where is it? Or with Jesus, immaculate conception? Rising from the dead? Those concepts just escape logic. However, I think when thinking of religion one is not supposed to think rationally about these miracles; one is supposed to take them on faith. This is what upsets the scientists, their faith relies more in observation rather than scripture.
Your idea of truth is an interesting concept, yet I wonder how you think about religion and the various amounts of truths in each religion. For example, just in the Christian religions, truth seems to be so variable. And also, how closely one follows truth will either get people to the afterlife or not. Just look at the difference between say the Catholics and the United Church, they seem to have different ideas of truth, and then take religions like the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Mormons. Each of these religions seem to have some differing concept religious truth. Plus, especially the Catholics, Mormons, and Seventh-Day Adventists are quite clear – our way is the way to heavan. I think a lot of people look at religion, get frustrated because the denominations can’t get their acts, or truth, together and demand something better. They turn to science for truth.
Erik: To answer your last question – yes. Scientific fact changes. In fact when a theory is eventually taken as fact, it is always with the understanding that the socalled fact might be disproved in the future. Scientists rarely say that something is 100% true. Take gravity, if suddenly someone observed a car floating in the air here on earth, scientists would have to go back to the drawing board and relook at gravitational theory. In medicine being homosexual was considered a mental illness until about 1970, and then because of research and advancement in medical thinking, changes happened.
I suspect your coworker was getting at the lack of rationality in religion as compared to science, although he might have been doing it with bad manners. Scientists, and others, often criticize religion for it’s lack of rationality. Take an idea like the flood. For a flood to totally encompass the world there would be enomous amounts of evidence left behind. Where is it? Or with Jesus, immaculate conception? Rising from the dead? Those concepts just escape logic. However, I think when thinking of religion one is not supposed to think rationally about these miracles; one is supposed to take them on faith. This is what upsets the scientists, their faith relies more in observation rather than scripture.
Your idea of truth is an interesting concept, yet I wonder how you think about religion and the various amounts of truths in each religion. For example, just in the Christian religions, truth seems to be so variable. And also, how closely one follows truth will either get people to the afterlife or not. Just look at the difference between say the Catholics and the United Church, they seem to have different ideas of truth, and then take religions like the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Mormons. Each of these religions seem to have some differing concept religious truth. Plus, especially the Catholics, Mormons, and Seventh-Day Adventists are quite clear – our way is the way to heavan. I think a lot of people look at religion, get frustrated because the denominations can’t get their acts, or truth, together and demand something better. They turn to science for truth.