Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Are Science and Religion Compatible?

Discussion in 'Interfaith Dialogues' started by Tejwant Singh, Jul 12, 2010.

  1. Tejwant Singh

    Tejwant Singh United States
    Expand Collapse
    Mentor Writer SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,560
    Likes Received:
    6,989
    Jerry Coyne and I had an interesting exchange yesterday that will appear in a brief video on USA Today's website at some point. The question related to the compatibility of science and religion. Can one accept the modern scientific view of the world and still hold to anything resembling a traditional belief in God?

    My answer to this question is "yes, of course," for I cannot see my way to clear to embrace either of the two alternatives -- a fundamentalist religion prepared to reject science, or a pure scientism that denies the reality of anything beyond what science can discover. But my position seems precarious to me in many ways, since I am getting shot at so vigorously by both sides.

    The events of the past few days have driven this home with great clarity. At the end of June, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, gave an address emphasizing the importance of reading the Genesis creation story literally as a way to protect the Bible from attacks by science. Such a reading, according to the persuasive Mohler, demands that we affirm that the "days" of Genesis are 24-hour days, and that the earth, therefore, is less than 10,000 years old. His audience clapped when he made this point.

    I think Mohler's position has been indefensible for 200 years. I find it amazing that such a large group of people -- 100 million Americans agree with him -- can get themselves onto an intellectual island and float so far away from modern science that they can't see the shoreline any longer. But Mohler and his audience are not hillbillies with straw hats, smoking corncob pipes, drinking moonshine and laughing about "Darwin's dumb theory about ape-men." They are well-educated and intelligent. They have simply decided that the consequences of changing their traditional views under pressure from science are too great. They are protecting something they value that feels threatened.

    Mohler's central point, however, was not that a young earth is essential or that science must be resisted. Few Young Earth Creationists would call themselves anti-science. His point is that the Bible must be taken seriously if one wants to be a Christian and, for Mohler, seriously means literally. And literally means the earth is young. And so much of modern science must be rejected in favor of a literal reading of Genesis.

    Jerry Coyne, who wrote the excellent Why Evolution Is True and runs a blog of the same name, wants to know how in the world Mohler's religion can ever be compatible with science. Framing the question like this closes the discussion. Young Earth Creationism is completely incompatible with science and we can all agree on that.

    But I don't think this comparison is fair. Juxtaposing "empirical science" with "revealed religion" in this particular way seems unbalanced. Mohler's views have broad popular appeal, to be sure, but they don't represent the best in Christian thinking. Few Catholics or Anglicans, for example, would agree with him. If we want to make a comparison with "populist" religion, we should use "populist" science. The great masses of religious "faithful" should be juxtaposed with the great masses of people who "believe" in science but are not leading professionals. What do you suppose "science" would look like, were it defined by these "believers"? The physics would be Aristotelian; astrology and aliens would be accepted as real; General Relativity would be unknown; quantum mechanics would be perceived as a way to influence the world with your mind, as we occasionally read on these blogs.

    Here is the kicker: all these people would have had far more education in science than the typical religious believer has in theology. Science, as "lived and practiced by real people" who "believe" it, is quite different from the science promoted by the intellectuals in this conversation

    The observations of science do indeed trump revealed truth about the world. Just ask Galileo. But empirical science also trumps other empirical science. Einstein supplanted Newton. This did not undermine the scientific enterprise, however, even though it showed that the science of that time was in error.

    In the same way, modern theology has replaced traditional theology. The mere fact that old-fashioned ideas persist does not mean that they can be legitimately used in an argument that religion is incompatible with science.
    If "science" is allowed to toss its historical baggage overboard when its best informed leaders decide to do so, even though the ideas continue to circulate on main street, then surely religion can do the same.

    Karl Giberson, Ph.D: Are Science and Religion Compatible?
     
    • Like Like x 7
    #1 Tejwant Singh, Jul 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2010
  2. Loading...


  3. Seeker9

    Seeker9 United Kingdom
    Expand Collapse
    Cleverness is not wisdom
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    973
    Another interesting article. Whilst I do not subscribe to creationism I do find one of the key concepts, i.e that of Irreducible Complexity, quite fascinating

    "Science, as "lived and practiced by real people" who "believe" it, is quite different from the science promoted by the intellectuals in this conversation"

    A nice quote that reflects some of the discussion on the "Is there a God thread"

    As I have already posted on that thread, personally, I have no qualms accepting both Scientific and Religious views of The Creation, as to me they represent different perspectives on the same thing
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. otilia

    otilia
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    69
    Yes, a very good essay, but I consider that they are different perspectives, faith, religion is one path and science is a completely different one.
    Kant (modern philosopher of XVI century) already described that human nature tends to go far beyond its ratio can explain, and I was taught as roman catholic student, that with your ratio you can learn or reach to the assumption that there is a God, Energy, or whatever you want to name it... but the God reveals Himself, and that is what faith is.
    Though I do not follow or practice catholicism now, I still belive that..... and whatever you call God... there is One, with as many names as you want Him to have.
    And it does not go against science... because the Bible is written with signs and simbles.... cannot take it literarily.....it´s full of metaphoras....we should read Carl Jung.... to understand what the Genesis means.... and so many of the stories Bible tells us....

    thanks,
    Otilia Ji
    :happykaur:
    :veryhappykaur:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Mai Harinder Kaur

    Mai Harinder Kaur
    Expand Collapse
    Mentor Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    2,766
    Personally, I could not accept any religion that compelled me to check my brains at the door. I believe that having a functioning brain is the Hukam of Vaheguru and I am expected to use it. I could not accept a religion that compelled me to (pretend to) believe things that I know to be false. I also believe that any Supreme Being worth worshiping does not play silly mind games with us, such as planting fossils that appear to be millions of years old, but are really only a few thousand - or a few hundred - years old. (I am told the reason for this is to test one's faith. I also don't believe the Deity tests our faith.)

    As for creation being measured in days (mind you, before the creation of the sun or the earth), I do not see how anybody with even the IQ of a dead hedgehog could believe such a thing. (OK, a test of faith, right?) In fact, my medical caregiver one day asked me if I believed God created the world in 7 days and in His own image. She could only smile that superior smirk at me when I said, "No and no." I didn't elaborate, of course, because my religion tells me to respect all people's religion, no matter my personal opinion of it. I believe that creation is an ongoing process that began when it began (probably at the Big Bang, if that theory is correct) and will end if/when it ends and Akal Purakh isn't a "he" and doesn't have an image and likeness to create me in.

    People should be free to believe whatever they believe, of course and to practice their religion freely within certain limits. (Some practices, such as sacrificing virgins or adulteresses need to be prohibited). I do get seriously concerned when the law requires religious teachings - such as Creationism - in the schools. I wonder how a science teacher is able to teach something s/he absolutely believes is erroneous. Wouldn't that push her/his integrity to the breaking point? Or would the Christian fundamentalists be satisfied with it being taught as, "Some people believe..."? I seriously doubt it.

    When I was a child, my mother's family insisted I be educated in the Roman Catholic Church. This was in the days when Mass was in Latin and priests were almost God and little girls would burn eternally in hell if they questioned. Fortunately for my sanity, I lived with my Dad in a Sikh home and thus was presented with an alternative to the nonsense I was being taught.

    So...does science need to be at odds with religion? Of course not, if one chooses a religion that doesn't call on its adherents to believe unscientific things.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    #4 Mai Harinder Kaur, Jul 13, 2010
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2010
  6. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    19,200
    QFT. The theory of natural selection is official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, a Christian faith.

    Now that poses a different problem altogether. Should we rejoice because a scientific theory is officially sanctioned by the Roman Church? Does it indicate that at least one battle between science and religion has been won? Or....should we be asking ourselves how anything in science, including the theory of natural selection, should be accepted as a doctrine. Theories of science are always subject to revision.

    It seems to me that natural selection, creationism and intelligent design have been used as a wedge by both sides in this argument about science and religion, each army having its agenda foremost in mind. Some scientists and most religionists have made natural selection, creationism and intelligent design "red herrings" in any number of conversations regarding the existence of God, evolution, and whether religion is good or bad for society. For shame on the scientists who have introduced logical fallacies into the dialog, and on religionists who are seeking ways to subvert the logic of science. Science and religion do best in an attitude of mutual respect.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Bittu

    Bittu
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2008
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hi <!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Tejwant Singh<!-- google_ad_section_end --> and all commenters.<?"urn::eek:ffice:eek:ffice" />
    I read this article & the comments and I found them anti-Christian. That’s nothing new! First of all I want to say that many commenters and writer/poster are ignorant of many things, like Creation Science, Holy Bible and Christianity.
    <o:p> </o:p>
    Let me write about the article. As a Bible believing Christian I believe Christianity and True- Science can co-exist. As I said the writer and many commenters are ignorant of Creationism. When Creationists say Earth is Young, it is not billions of yrs old, but just thousands they are not wrong in their argument. You cannot prove Universe & Earth is billions of yrs old, just from carbon dating (C14) of fossils. Carbon dating is neither 100% right nor it is fully reliable, if you doubt my argument you may search it. Just because something seems to be billions of yrs old it doesn’t mean it is! Creationists have proofs for their arguments and you must check them. Creationists are not garden school kids they are also PhD holders and Scientists from all fields of science. Many creationists are well known for their work, and their position in the community of scientists. The matter is that only you guys don’t know who they are because of your ignorance. Evolutionist cannot prove Big-bang neither Darwin’s useless theories and about their arguments, Creationists can refute them all.
    <o:p> </o:p>
    Today everybody tries to prove that Christianity is anti-science. But the fact is that it is not!! No creationist would call himself anti-science because they themselves are using science to prove their point. No Bible teacher would ever say that Bible (whole Bible) must be taken literally or allegorically. Bible is literal where it says it is, and it is allegoric where it says it is. No Creationist or Christian reject true or established modern science. If you think you are right and creationists are wrong then why don’t you have debate with them? Your problem is that you only listen / look Evolutionists and never creationists. If you are sincere then you must look both sides (without partiality) and then conclude. Young Earth Creationism and Christianity are completely compatible with established modern science.
    <o:p> </o:p>
    Well, I am not a Roman Catholic but I want to ask <!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Mai Harinder Kaur<!-- google_ad_section_end -->, “where did she leaned that little girls would burn eternally in hell if they questioned”? When you know nothing about Christianity how could you say such things?
    I also want to say here that the Holy Bible is the only oldest book in the world which is scientifically correct, though it is not a science book, nor was it written to teach science lessons but The Way i.e. Jesus Christ. Bible also promotes education and inspires to increase wisdom; the whole “Book of Proverbs” is dedicated for it.
    “When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.”
    -- Dr. Donald DeYoung. Ph.D. (Physicist)
    “Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence.” -- Hank Hanegraaff
    If you want to see whether Bible is scientifically correct or not, visit my site http://ktzion.weebly.com/science-and-the-holy-bible.htmlscienceandthebible.htm .
     
    #6 Bittu, Jul 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2015
  8. Aulakh

    Aulakh
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    30
    Waheguru ji ki Fateh
    Brother Tejwant Singh has raised a very significant issue and has also answered his questions partialy.
    Let me start the dialogue with a quote
    "Knowledge is one ,its division into subjects is concession for human weakness".
    Now why we want to compare and differentiate between science and religion?
    If we have already taken positions then there is no point in discussion, and according to me the situation is really like this.
    The point in disscussion is that of Christianity and not all religions.For example if we talk about Sikhism then many questions are already answered--Gurbani says that no one can tell when the world was created ,we have been in other Yonies(kayi janam bhay keet patanga)-Gurbani does not cntradict the theory of evolution and reveals the creation of world out of Dhundukara.
    Actually out of such discussions we intend to establish our superiority and not understand others point of view,we really donot listen to others.
    Science and religion do not clash with each other;their tools are different,they are trying to understand nature with their own tools.The Scientists working in the field of quantum mechanics were the ones who could feel the all prevading energy.
    Please let me say that these are my views after being a student of science for 40 years and I do not intend to hurt the feelin of any one;I have been brought up by traditionl sikh parents and I am a firm believer of Gurbani and a baptised Sikh,my science has never shaken my belief but rather confirmed it.
    With love to all the reders of SPN
    Gian Singh Aulakh(Dr)
     
    • Like Like x 5
  9. sssobti

    sssobti
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    12
    Respected DR.Gian singh ji,
    Guru fateh. I really appreciate ur views & fully believe in it.Gurbani is really 100% scientific. The fault lies only with our perception. May god bless us with the right PERCEPTION , so that we shall never doubt the practical imlementation of gurbani.
    guru rakha,
    Sukhvinder singh
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. Seeker9

    Seeker9 United Kingdom
    Expand Collapse
    Cleverness is not wisdom
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    973
    Dear Bittu Ji

    Thanks for providing another viewpoint

    I would like to reply to some of the issues you have raised in your post:

    When Creationists say Earth is Young, it is not billions of yrs old, but just thousands they are not wrong in their argument. You cannot prove Universe & Earth is billions of yrs old, just from carbon dating (C14) of fossils. Carbon dating is neither 100% right nor it is fully reliable<?"urn::eek:ffice:eek:ffice" />
    <o:p> </o:p>
    That is very true but it is not wildly inaccurate either. Which it would have to be to close the gap of billions and thousands of years
    <o:p> </o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    Creationists have proofs for their arguments and you must check them.
    <o:p> </o:p>
    I would very much like to learn more…perhaps you could direct me to where I can find these proofs. Also, it would be good to know what your understanding of these proofs are
    <o:p> </o:p>
    Evolutionist cannot prove Big-bang
    Very true as one is the domain of Biology whereas the other is the domain of theoretical physics
    <o:p> </o:p>
    neither <?xml:::eek:ffice:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Darwin’s useless theories and about their arguments,
    Personally, I would not call a theory that can explain at least 95% of what we can observe in nature today as useless
    <o:p> </o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    Creationists can refute them all.
    As noted in an earlier post, I agree the concept of “Irreducible Complexity” merits further investigation


    Young Earth Creationism and Christianity are completely compatible with established modern science.
    Not with carbon dating or the geological record. Despite what you see in the movies, to my knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Dinosaurs and man ever co-existed. If you can provide some evidence contrary to that, I would very much like to see it.
    But one would expect primitive man would have been more likely to have been eaten by the Dinosaurs than the other way round!
    <o:p> </o:p>
    Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383
    I also want to say here that the Holy Bible is the only oldest book in the world which is scientifically correct
    I’m afraid I will disagree with you flatly on that one and suggest you do some research on the Vedas which very easily pre-date The Bible
    <o:p> </o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    If you want to see whether Bible is scientifically correct or not, visit my site http://ktzion.webs.com/scienceandthebible.htm .
    <!-- google_ad_section_end -->
    I was compelled to make these points for now but I will look at this website and post again
    <o:p> </o:p>
    We are here to debate, discuss and learn from each other. Maybe I am reading things wrong but I would respectfully suggest that the tone and some of your comments were not merited in light of earlier posts
     
    • Like Like x 3
    #9 Seeker9, Jul 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2015
  11. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    19,200
    I would humbly request that forum members avoid using the Times Roman font as it is very small and therefore difficult to read. Use arial font if possible. Thank you.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Mai Harinder Kaur

    Mai Harinder Kaur
    Expand Collapse
    Mentor Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    2,766
    Bittu ji asked me:
    The person who told me that was was Father Jacques LeBlanc in Montreal, Quebec, Canada who was trying to prepare me for the Sacrament of Holy Confirmation in about 1963-4. I insisted that he explain some dogma to me in a way that made sense and when he couldn't, he responded that little girls who question the truths of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ himself would burn eternally in hell. From birth to age 12, I attended Mass every Sunday with my mother's family and from age 6, I attended Holy Catechism classes twice a week. I have since been evangelised by Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, among others. I have several times read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I am not a biblical scholar, but I have studied that religion. It is not accurate to say I "know nothing about Christianity."

    I refuse to get into a debate about the veracity of Christianity or any other religion. I have no problem with your belief in whatever you believe in. I believe something differentanimatedkhandaand when asked, I will express my opinion on these things. I do not argue. I have my say and then shut up. I am only answering Bittu ji because s/he asked me directly. icecreamkaur
     
    • Like Like x 3
    #11 Mai Harinder Kaur, Jul 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2015
  13. Archived_member13

    Archived_member13
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    47
    Gurfateh ji,

    Though their is lot of good things which have been stated regarding Science but the main question how do you prove it that science is matches with religion, Mr. Tejwant Singh article is quite informative but Gurbani sahib message has already been given 600 years but Nasa scientists has discovered in last 5 years or so in their research they
    found that before the creation of universe their is was no sky it was absolutely nothing.
    But here is the answer-
    There was no earth or sky; there was only the infinite Command of His Hukam. There was no day or night, no moon or sun; God sat in primal, profound Samaadhi. ||1|| There were no sources of creation or powers of speech, no air or water. There was no creation or destruction, no coming or going. There were no continents, nether regions, seven seas, rivers or flowing water. ||2|| There were no heavenly realms, earth or nether regions of the underworld. There was no hell or heaven, no birth or death, no coming or going in reincarnation. ||3|| ( SGGS)

    Now which religous scripture can describe the conditions before Big bang theory but
    Gurbani does and many scientists have admitted the message of Gurbani.
    In many religious scriptures lot of things been said about science like Torah, Bible or
    Quran many have been trying to prove their side of their storyone way to ther other but when knowledge ofGurmat shines their are no questions left is their anything more to prove Gurbani does not talk about science one should be firm beleiver in SGGS and
    realise the treasure which is hidden inside SGGS cannot be found in any other religous
    scripture.

    Regards

    Gurveen Singh
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Seeker9

    Seeker9 United Kingdom
    Expand Collapse
    Cleverness is not wisdom
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    973
    Dear Bittu Ji

    I have now had an opportunity to view the material on your website

    I must commend you on the scale and scope of your work here and I will not deny that I was genuinely impressed by some of your findings.

    That said, overall, I still feel that it is possible to have an alternative interpretation of some of these passages. I have some examples below with specific comments. For the benefit of those reading this post, quotations from your website are in Italics

    1 Palaeontology

    Dinosaur references in The Bible:
    “It [Behemoth] is said to be the chief of the ways of God”


    What does that mean and how can it be an attribute to describe a Dinosaur? Why would a Biblical scholar have described a Dinosaur in that way?

    He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

    If we are still talking about Dinosaurs, then these would have to be pretty gigantic reeds and ferns


    2 Anthropology

    We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men.


    Yes we do and there aren't many that show men and Dinosaurs together. There are some but not many.


    3 Astronomy

    People often have this erroneous notion that the night sky visible to them is the same as is to all other nations. But the stars visible in the northern and the southern hemispheres are entirely different from each other. Man discovered this only in the modern era, but Bible gave us the same information over 3500 years ago. It says that the Lord has divided the stars unto the nations.*


    Bit of a sweeping statement there. What about Stonehenge and the Pyramids, both of which demonstrate clear knowledge of Mathematics and Astronomy


    Red Giant
    The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come.” (Joel 2:31),
    *“The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the LORD come:” (Act. 2:20)
    *This is the exact description of Red Giant. Today our Sun is too bright (white) but when its life will come to an end it will darken (Dark Red colored) and become Red Giant(about 2000 to 3000 Kelvin), more luminous and it will expand outward many times its original size. As we know Moon receives its light from the Sun, when Sun will become*Red Giant, Moon will also reflect Red light.*


    Actually, I would say “the moon into blood” accurately describes a lunar eclipse and this pheneomenon is very common. The sun will not “darken” as you describe it here. I note you have also commented on the “Giant” aspect of the term “Red Giant” The sun will indeed expand to many times its current size and completely engulf the Earth and the Moon. So there will be no Red Moon as you describe it when this happens.

    You note White Dwarf is a stage after Red Giant yet these quotes are taken from different books of the Bible that don't follow a Chronological order.



    As a whole this was a stimulating read; thanks for the link.

    Some of your analysis is genuinely impressive. For example, concerning the Physical properties of the Earth and other astronomical references

    But I also feel you have chosen to interpret some quotations in a way that complements your theory which is fine.

    In a similar fashion I could quite easily find quotes that I would argue appear to support my beliefs and views. For example:

    Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 11:
    And God said, Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and it was so

    I could argue that “Let the Earth bring forth” = Evolution. I would humbly suggest that such an interpretation is no more or less valid than those you have presented on your website.

    Here's another:

    Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 20:
    And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life...


    This is an accurate description of Evolution which states life began in the Oceans

    I have made some observations above based on just the first few sections of your analysis. Given sufficient time, I daresay I could make some similar comment on most of the text in your analysis. But I am not going to as I think I have adequately demonstrated my position in this matter

    I would urge other readers of this thread to folllow the link and read (and appreciate) the analysis and draw their own conclusions

    Apologies for the length of this post
     
    • Like Like x 2
    #13 Seeker9, Jul 14, 2010
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2010
  15. BhagatSingh

    BhagatSingh Canada
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer sikhiart.com

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,912
    Likes Received:
    1,640
    Is science and religion compatible?
    I think Mai Harinder Kaur ji's beautiful reply is quite illustrative of the importance of acknowledging the meaning of "science", "compatibility" and ESPECIALLY, "religion", and quite illustrative of how modern people view religion.
    For her its choosing a religion (way of life) that does not compete with science (worldview, knowledge, truth). I think this is a wonderful idea. It allows for the individual to progress, and allows the religion (way of life) to be updated with time.

    However, for others, religion (worldview, knowledge, truth and way of life) may compete with science (worldview, knowledge, truth). They might also see religion as a tradition that is not to be given up... here science and religion are at odds. Not only that but these guys have become an obstacle from any progress they might make by improving their system. Sadly, these people are the most influential of the two, in terms of politics and power.

    This raises the questions:
    What about the incompatibility with regards to power? Who should we listen to when passing bills and laws?

    Consider these questions, these have been the BIG debates of our time! They have only arisen only because of the latter scenario of the two.
    Should condoms be made available for wider use? Should abortion be allowed? Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

    -------------------Refuting creationists-----------------------
    Carbon dating is quite inaccurate at a large scale and the geologists know that. So they often combine it with other dating methods. It turns out that Carbon dating correlates with other dating methods, so its still used.

    Jerry Coyne on his book: Why Evolution is True?

    YouTube - 'Why Evolution Is True' by Jerry Coyne, AAI 2009

    1-33 Video Series by ThunderF00t The First one is Here:
    The others can be found in related videos.
    YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Sukhmani

    Sukhmani
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    7
    I must say there were many interesting thoughts said in this thread, however i d like to share my point of view, maybe from a little bit different side.
    So i come to the original article which regards to Christianity. I think that the major issue is the time when the Torah and the Bible were written. They deal with creation and constitution of the world and their writers were working with the knowledge of the world available at that time. They tried to deal with the world in its complexity. So they inevitably come to confrontation with the knowledge of current science and i myself think that Christian churches must have a problem with it how to explain discrepancies now when something else science says and something else is written in their Holy Scripture... the extreme of this effort to cope with it is to proclaim inevitability of literal reading and acceptance of scientific knowledge as maybe heresy in some sects and denominations and waging of an imaginary war against science...

    From this point of view Sikhism has, i would say, an advantage... because Sikh's Holy Scripture, Guru Granth Sahib ji, is concentrated not so much on constitution of the world but on man and his role in the world, purpose of his life here and his journey to Waheguru ji. The principles set by Guru ji are still up to date in this context because they are dealing with relations among people, man himself and his relation to Almighty and not with knowledge of creation of the world and ritual practices which could look somehow oldfashioned, useless and irational from current point of view as we can find in the Bible... but the fact is that Christianity cannot deny validity of sentences written in the Bible so easily because of a very simple reason ... it is holy for Christians and should be respected as it is...
     
    • Like Like x 4
  17. eropa234

    eropa234
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    98
    SGGS is a book of science in the sense that it teaches and encourages us to know the truth through the power of questioning. Its not a Granth about Physics, Chemistry or Astronomy etc, but the principle of acquiring this scientific knowledge is also the same. In our case there is no question of compatibility as a matter of fact the two support each other.

    Some religions that have described Astronomy in their scriptures are in odds with the modern science and are having much difficulty reconciling the two and some deny modern Astronomy they claim that its false. You can still find people who believe the earth is flat based on their scriptures.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  18. Bittu

    Bittu
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2008
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    4
    Dear Seeker9,<?"urn::eek:ffice:eek:ffice" />
    Some Creationist Sites
    http://www.icr.org, http://www.answersingenesis.org, http://www.creationists.org/
    Radiocarbon Dating
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
    The Fossil Record
    http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-fosilrecord.htm
    http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Tight-Fold-and-Clastic-Dikes-Rapid-Deposition-Deformation.pdf
    http://www.icr.org/article/how-long-did-it-take-deposit-geologic-strata/
    Age of earth
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/young-age-evidence
    http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/earthage.html
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
    http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/
    http://www.icr.org/article/sedimentary-structure-shows-young-earth/
    Darwin’s theory
    Darwin’s theory does not explain anything rather it contradicts logical scientific facts.
    Darwin in his book “On the Origin of Species” described/proposed a theory called natural selection (survival of the fittest) means, "only the fittest organisms will prevail." According to Evolutionists ancient humans were helpless, witless; they did not have nails (like animals), sharp teeth, or running speed to protect themselves. Human baby also take too much time to grow, to stand on feet and hence cannot protect itself as other animals do. And if you place such a human in this theory then it will create problem. Because according to this theory only fittest will live. Human was/is not fittest if you place him in a jungle he cannot /could not protect himself (according evolutionists, at least human brain is developed today, so he can think and do something but those ancient men were not developed). So, if Darwin’s theory is right then it would be impossible for humans to prevail, and live till this day.
    Also Ape and Human DNA similarity do not prove common ancestry. Evolutionists say that Chimpanzee and Human DNA is 98% identical (though today evolutionist scientist found that it is much less that 98%) that means it is a proof of evolution and common ancestry. But they hide other things, We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages, 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly (Drosophila species), 50% of our DNA with Mice, 75 % of our DNA with nematode worms, 33% of our DNA with Daffodil (flower plant) etc. Why don’t these evolutionists say, cabbage, fruit fly, worm, potato, flower, mice, horse etc are our ancestors?
    Evolution also cannot explain complexity of organs, Ex. Eye. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/vestigial-organs
    Furthermore Darwin’s evolution encourages/preaches Racism! That’s why Communists & Nazis used Darwin’s evolution to justify their position of superior race.
    useful links for further study.
    http://overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Et_6oDbTRuUJ:www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240+ape+and+human+dna+matches+99%25&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vEEh2mB0UgUJ:www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070+ape+and+human+dna+matches+99%25&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk
    http://www.truthseekers.ca/bible-truths/evolution-and-chimpanzee-dna.htm
    Proofs Dinosaurs and humans co-existed
    http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm, http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm
    http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs-humans-coexisted.html, http://www.dinosaursandman.com/, http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinoscoexist.html
    By the way I didn’t say Bible is the Oldest book in the world, I said Bible is the Oldest book in the world which is scientifically accurate. I have no problem to accept Vedas as much older books though dates are disputed and they contradict established modern science. My point was not which is older, my point was which is scientifically correct. You will find it on my site http://ktzion.webs.com/scienceandthebible.htm
     
    #17 Bittu, Jul 15, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2015
  19. Bittu

    Bittu
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2008
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    4
    Dear Seeker9,ffice<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/> </v:formulas> <v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/images/smilies/redface.gif" style='width:16pt; height:16pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'> <v:imagedata src="file://localhost/Users/widener/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_image001.gif" o:title="//www.sikhphilosophy.net/images/smilies/redface.gif"/> <v:textbox style='mso-rotate-with-shape:t'/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]-->

    1 Palaeontology
    It is absolutely possible that the description of Behemoth in the Bible is about Dinosaur. I think you haven’t read its description otherwise you won’t ask this question. As I wrote on my site no other animal matches this description. But you have problem with the following verse:-
    “He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.” (Job 40:21)
    From Tiger to Elephant almost all animals spent some time in the water. So, no wonder Dinosaurs too did that!! It is said that, “he lieth under shady trees (name of the tree is not given, it may be Lotus, Vallisneria americana,Potamogeton amplifolius,Nuphar variegate,Nymphaea odorata, or some other big leafy plant), in the covert of reed (Yes absolutely as you said there is Giant reed (Arundo donax) http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/node/48) and FENS (low marshy land) not FERNS (flowerless plant) as you wrote. According to scientists plants and trees (not all) were also giant like animals in the ancient times because of environment of that time.
    3 Astronomy
    About Stonehenge, nobody knows who built it, what was its purpose there are many speculations about it like, “it was a temple made for the worship of ancient earth deities. It has been called an astronomical observatory for marking significant events on the prehistoric calendar. Others claim that it was a sacred site for the burial of high-ranking citizens from the societies of long ago.” But NO one is sure for their speculation. Still, it’s a marvel of ancient engineering.
    About Pyramids, yes everybody accepts that they are masterpiece of engineering. But I wrote about Mats on my site, i.e. value of Pi. Egyptians calculated value of Pi as 3.16 which is wrong as were Babylonians Pi = 3.12. It was Archimedes who calculated Pi = 3.14 in 220 B.C. But Bible in 960 B.C gives value of Pi = 3.14 much before Archimedes (220 B.C.) who is credited for calculating it correctly.
    Red Giant
    The verses of Bible I mentioned here for dying Sun, all refers to the End Time, i.e. before the Judgement Day (before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come).
    I may be wrong on this matter of Sun.
    Well, the matter is debated whether Earth will engulf in the Red Giant or not. “Although scientists agree on the sun’s future, they disagree about what will happen to Earth.” (Scientific American Magazine, September 2008). God created this universe He has complete control over His Creation. He will not let Sun consume Earth.
    Sun may darken (Red Giant {Dark Red colored}) as I said because Hebrew word in the first verse used is “chôshek” and Greek word in the second verse used is “skotos” both means“shadiness” another Hebrew word is used in first two verses of the (Black Dwarf) is “qâdar” means “to be ashy,” “to be black”, third verse “châshak” means “to be ashy,” “to be black”. The word used for Red Giant is different from that of Black dwarf. So, it’s entirely possible.
    As I said these verses of the Bible are talking about End and not a common lunar eclipse. By the way the verse says “Moon like Blood” while in lunar eclipse it is reddish. And Sun will not engulf Earth and Moon in a second it will take millions of years according to your evolutionist scientists (I don’t believe millions or billions yrs). So, it is surely possible that there will be Blood like Moon.
    These verses have nothing to do with the chronological order of the Bible since they all are prophecies of the End Time (before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come). Biblical books are arranged as Law, Writings/Poetry and Prophets. Oldest book (I’m not talking about events) of the Bible is not Genesis it is the “Book of Job” 18th book of the Bible.
    Recently scientists discovered a planet that survived its parent stars red giant.
    http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1633-scientists-39-good-news-earth-may-survive-sun-39-s-demise-in-5-billion-years
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070912_rgiant_planet.html
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1281159020070912
    http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Lectures/vistas97.html
    You wrote:-
    “Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 11:
    And God said, Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and it was so

    I could argue that “Let the Earth bring forth” = Evolution.
    Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 20:
    And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life...

    This is an accurate description of Evolution which states life began in the Oceans”
    The verses you quote do not support your evolutionist beliefs or views,it’s impossible because the Bible teaches instant creation while Evolution teaches slow development of billions of years. Bible teaches God created them whereas Evolution teaches there is no God no Creation. You can see it if you read that whole chapter.
    Thank You.

    <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
    <!--[endif]-->

    <!--EndFragment-->
     
    #18 Bittu, Jul 15, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2015
  20. Seeker9

    Seeker9 United Kingdom
    Expand Collapse
    Cleverness is not wisdom
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    973
    Dear Bittu Ji


    Contrary to what you have said, it is my personal view that there is plenty of room for God in Science. As noted in an earlier post, Evolution and Big Bang theories have all been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church

    Whether or not your particular Church chooses to acknowledge this is a matter for you alone. I would add that a lot of religions and spiritual paths go into varying levels of detail about how The Creation came about. Christianity does not have a monopoly on this.

    May I also point out that you are posting on a forum which, amongst other things, is dedicated to increasing knowledge and appreciation of the Sikh scriptures. Those Scriptures do not state Science is everything and God does not exist.

    Re Stonehenge – it's not a question of purpose. Its clear astronomical precision is not for dispute and even to this day, it attracts hundreds of visitors every year to watch the sun rise on the Summer Solstice. That is real.

    Re Pi – you stated a cubit is 18 to 22cm. That is a range of 4cm and all values within that range would not give you the answer of 3.14. So, whilst your explanation was fascinating, I have to say I prefer the fixed and proven mathematical precision of the Great Pyramid of Giza

    I would also humbly suggest that other proofs you have illustrated using a numerological approach are far from scientific

    Survival of the fittest – As the Dinosaurs had already died a long time ago, humans were in a much better position to survive

    Human Ape DNA – yes it may be much less than 98% but how much less????

    Genesis – I have read Genesis. In fact I have read the entire Old Testament once and the New Testament twice. My point was that it is a matter of interpretation and I maintain my interpretation is no less valid than yours.

    Re some of your links:

    Answers in Genesis – I have come across this site before.. It's an interesting read and one I would recommend to readers of this thread.

    Planet surviving Red Giant –Yes, I was aware of this. The articles state the planet started out at roughly the same distance as Earth and then drifted away. The planet was also 3x the size of Jupiter which would make it 33x the size of Earth so not the same.

    Finally, re your clarification of The Bible being the oldest book to contain references to Science, thanks but I did not misunderstand you the first time. And I stand by what I say about the Vedas. I won't post any links here. All I would say is Google “Science in the Vedas” and pick any one of the 348,000 results that are returned to begin to expand your knowledge in this area.

    Thanks again and I look forward to your responses as I am enjoying this stimulating debate
    :eek:rangesingh:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  21. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    19,200
    Admin note:

    I will be reformatting posts that are written in fonts that are so small that their message is nearly invisible to the naked eye. Thank you.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    #20 spnadmin, Jul 16, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 16, 2010

Share This Page