Faithful to God, Science

Found this article link called Faithful to God, Science through SmartChristian.com.

I particularly liked the following excerpts:

He urges his fellow scientists to give up the arrogant assumption that the only questions worth asking are those science can answer. He entreats his fellow believers to recognize it's not blasphemous to learn about the world.

One day last summer, in the basement office of his suburban home here, Collins dictated this manifesto into a tape recorder: "Science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced. God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." It became the central thesis of his book — with this addendum: "Abandon the battlements."

This plea for a truce encourages some veterans of the culture wars.

Polls routinely show that about half of all Americans believe God created man, fully formed, within the last 10,000 years, as the Bible recounts. The vast majority of scientists find that ludicrous, but their account of man evolving from primordial muck does not resonate broadly, especially with Christians who believe in a personal God, deeply concerned about each human life.

"I had a great concern that this would be portrayed as though we were taking away room for spirituality, making us out to be nothing more than a mechanical instruction book — robots, machines, victims of our DNA," Collins said.

Invited to the White House to announce the triumph, Collins tried to signal that those concerned with the soul and the spirit should not take the new science as a threat. "It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring," he said, standing at Clinton's side, "to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."

I do feel, however, that this idea is questionable:

Collins, some hope, might bridge this gap by reassuring Christians that they can buy evolution without selling out their faith.

I agree with this:

Some Christians accuse Collins of denying the foundation of faith when he calls the Biblical creation account an allegory.

"Not accepting the history in Genesis undermines the entire gospel," said Ken Ham, president of a ministry called Answers in Genesis, which promotes creationism. "The Bible says from dust we come and to dust we return. We don't return to an ape-man when we die."

In my conversations with Darwinists, I have found this to be true also:

From the other camp, some scientists ridicule Collins' effort to find a place for God in the scientific framework.

"I could just as well say that there are 70 pink elephants revolving around the Earth," said Herbert A. Hauptman, a Nobel laureate in chemistry. Science and faith "are simply incompatible," he added. "There's no getting around it."

It appears (to me, at least) that the "two camps" will always be like boxers in a ring, going back into their own corners...

The last few paragraphs were very telling; especially the Collin's last sentence:

Outsiders sometimes ask, with alarm, whether this knowledge will allow scientists to "play God" — to manipulate and enhance man's genetic code in ways nature never intended. Collins urges public debate to set boundaries, or as he puts it: "How far down the line do we go [before] we start to affect what it means to be human?"

But he never feels as though he's on the verge of usurping God with his discoveries in the lab. The more he learns, the more he's humbled.

As he explores each intricate rung of DNA, Collins said, "it's like I'm glimpsing a little of God's mind."

*******

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

In chapter four of D. James Kennedy's book, "Why I Believe,", Dr. Kennedy shares why he believes in Creation.

While doing an internet search, I ran across a Darwinist's refutation of several things that Kennedy stated in this chapter. What was disturbing to me, though, was the fact that the Darwinist left out six, very important paragraphs from the chapter and also claimed that Kennedy "started the chapter" with this statement:

"It means that we live in a time when there are only two religions competing for the minds, hearts, and loyalties of Western man. The future of this world will be determined, humanly speaking, by Western man. One of those religions is Christianity; the other religion is evolution."

That is blatant intellectual dishonesty! Seems typical, though, since we now know the truth of the "Icons of Evolution" that had been (and some still are!) passed off as "fact."

The following is the part that the Darwinist left out. After reading it, I'm sure you will recognize why he didn't want to "refute" that particular portion.

Examining creation will bring us closer to the Creator. That is what the earliest founders of science believed, or as the founder of astronomy put it, we would be merely thinking God's thoughts after Him.

But something happened on the way to the twentieth century. In the middle of the nineteenth century when modern science began to develop, the entire scientific enterprise was hijacked.

I am referring to Darwin's theory of evolution. Canada's leading scientist, who was chosen to write the Introduction to the centennial edition of The Origin of the Species, said that the greatest evil Darwin has brought upon the world is to somehow divide science from God and, in fact, set the two at each other's throats.

The theory of evolution has had enormous and devastating impact upon the modern world in which we live. Michael Denton, author of a fascinating book titled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, wrote:

The voyage on The Beagle [Darwin's ship on which he set sail from England in 1831] was a journey of awesome significance. Its object was to survey Patagonia; its result was to shake the foundations of western thought. The Origin of the Species [which followed] has been referred to as "one of the most important books ever written" [it is because it seeks to shake the foundation of the most important book ever written]. As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of the theory of evolution and the elimination of traditional teleological thinking was catastrophic.

Teleological thinking is the thinking you and I engage in every day. To think teleologically is to believe life has purpose and an end. The evolutionist believes nothing has purpose or an end. Consequently, life has no significance or meaning or importance. The whole scientific enterprise, however, has been hijacked into a naturalistic or materialistic view of the world. Naturalism believes that there is nothing in the universe but nature, nothing supernatural; materialism believes that there is nothing in the world but matter.

What does that mean?

*******

You can read the rest at Alex Matulich's "refutation" site. But wait! Can we be sure that he has honestly quoted Dr. Kennedy?

Oops! Found another convenient part of Kennedy's quote missing from Matulich's post!

Matulich wrote:

"K> They would get up and walk out, and rightly so. But that is the way men accept evolution."

But I have Dr. Kennedy's book and this is the entire quote:

"They would get up and walk out, and rightly so. But that is the way men accept evolution-by blind faith!"

Hmmm....and Matulich accuses Kennedy of misquoting? You know what they say about people in glass houses?? Look in the mirror Matulich!!

It would be quite a project to counter-refute Matulich's drivel. But it might be fun to count the misquotes that he's guilty of. Any volunteers out there? ;-)

Lastly, I want to post a link to Joe Carter's 10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design: Addendum -- PZ Myers Proves My Point over at the Evangelical Outpost. [Click on link and scroll down to it.]

Lots of comments too!

Happy reading!

Hat tip: Evangelical Outpost

SmartChristian