Let’s start off with a bible passage that a majority if not all of you will recognize. So put your hand up as soon as you know what it is:
[Genesis 1- The Beginning]
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Right, so Genesis 1. A lot happens in Genesis. I mean, God separates light and dark. He creates sky and water. He creates land and seas. He sprouts vegetation on the land, and produces animals – fish, land animals, birds, and all in-between- he creates a man then a woman. And then, at the end of chapter 1 in verse 31, it says: “31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.”
And so, today I want to address one of the most disputed, big, clichéd topics that will be brought up in any existential debate: how could any thinking person chose God over science. In other terms: God v.s. Science.
This question has been posed to me in many ways. Some of the more memorable ones, I’ve always jutted down for this very occasion.
So a number of the questions were about evolution, such as:
“How misinformed and uninformed adult Christians in Australia are about topics such as “evolution” and “The Big Bang” and yet being asked by my university educated (medical professional) step mother (who is about 45) “If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” - in all seriousness is unbelievably depressing”
The next one was much briefer, they simply asked:
“Creationism v.s. evolution”
Which is basically what the other person said, just shorter.
I also had:
“The theory of evolution is really quite compelling and I struggle to accept that there is another likely scenario where the world and all its glory is created by another means. You can’t argue with the presence of fossils and scientific evidence to suggest that we have evolved over millions of years.”And one last one from this branch:
“Why is all the evidence in Darwin’s theory of evolution ignored by creationists?”
So that’s a sample of a number of questions that are about evolution and the fact that you can’t hold both as the claim. Then there were a few others where the base message was that Christianity was unscientific because you can’t do repeatable experiments to prove Christian beliefs.
Which is true.
You cant do an experiment in a lab to prove that Jesus is risen from the dead. And that’s the centerpiece of Christian belief. That’s not how that claim works. There’s no lab anywhere in the world that would run you that experiment. So this is one persons objection phrased that way:
“Christianity is unscientific. Things shouldn’t be believed because of 200 year- old, anonymous, second –hand eye witness testimony, or personal revelations, or dreams, or because an old book said so. Things should be believed because there is repeatable, independently verifiable evidence.”
Now that view there, depending on your background you might call scientism or what I call logical positivism. And the idea there is “well, look, if you cannot prove something in a laboratory, then it shouldn’t be believed. No matter how many witness you might have, that’s not how to decide what to believe. You decide what to believe by science and science only”
Now, because I don’t want to spend too much time on this, I want to address that very briefly, because it seems to be a very common view. Thing is, the problem with that view is that you would have no arts, no humanities, no, literature wouldn’t classify as knowledge anyway, no knowledge, no philosophy, no history and nothing in the past could be affirmed by anybody. Because you can’t do an experiment in a lab to prove it’s true. You can’t do an experiment in a lab to prove that mother Teresa, or Shakespeare or Nelson Mandela lived. So we should disregard all of these historical...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document