xjwsforChrist

Non-Religious Christian Spirituality
It is currently Thu Apr 30, 2026 5:48 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:56 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
GLADIATOR SAID

Science seeks to discover how the universe came into being and how it works, including our world. It does this by applying scientific method and accepts that there is no end to discovery. Science is responsible for the inventions we use everyday.

Scientists are required to put in years of hard work and be prepared to accept that they may never arrive at an absolute position. They are not promised life after death and do not expect to be assisted by an invisible being.

Science and religion can appear to be two entirely different mindsets. Science is often perceived to be incompatible with belief in God. Yet many people manage to take an active interest in science and maintain belief in God. Religion appears to have arrived at a conclusion based on a holy book, or by personal revelation, with faith being the main requirement. Belief does not require the hard work that sciencetific research does.

Do you think science and religion are compatible?

Do you have any thoughts related to this subject that you would like to share?

Please dip your toe in the water and help to get this new forum rolling.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:56 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
PAULSACRAMENTO SAID

Enjoy:
http://biologos.org/blog/david-lack-evo ... -christian

David Lack

In my previous essay, I discussed “Darwin’s finches” and how surprisingly little Charles Darwin himself had to say about them. In fact, it was actually the British ornithologist David Lack (1910-1973) who conducted the critical research that immortalized the finches in biology textbooks and popular lore. In 1973, the eminent German zoologist Ernst Mayr wrote:

Already well known among professional ornithologists, his work on the Galapagos finches gave David Lack world fame… There is no modern textbook of zoology, evolution or ecology which does not include an account of his work.1

Decades have passed since Mayr wrote these words, and David Lack’s name has largely faded from public discourse. On the other hand, the Galapagos finches have become one of the most recognized symbols of evolution in the world today. Does it really matter whether Lack or Darwin gets credit for describing the evolution of these remarkable birds?

Insofar as evolutionary theory contrasted with religious belief, it makes a big difference. In a culture that is eager to equate evolution with atheism, it should come as no surprise that these birds are only known as “Darwin’s finches”. Darwin’s personal struggles and ultimate rejection of Christianity are well documented, and people are eager to link his loss of faith to his evolutionary theory. David Lack, on the other hand, began his scientific career as an agnostic, but shortly after publishing his famous book on the evolution of Galápagos finches, he converted to Christianity! 2
A Christian at the forefront of evolutionary biology

Lack’s Christian conversion did not mark the end of his scientific achievements, either. In fact, he continued as a prolific researcher until just weeks before he died. Among his many achievements, he was Director of the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology (1945-1973), Fellow of the Royal Society, and President of both the International Ornithological Congress (1962-66) and the British Ecological Society (1964-65). His fellow scientists held him in great esteem:

He was described as one of the most outstanding among world ornithologists; he was certainly this, but he was also one of the world’s leading evolutionists. All the time one saw developing his use of birds as material for the study of wider, deeper, biological problems.3

Clearly David Lack was an outstanding scientist, and his commitment to Christianity did not tarnish, hinder, or undermine his research on evolution. But we might also ask, what was Lack like as a Christian? Did he keep his faith hidden from view, afraid that it might compromise his reputation as a scientist? Ernst Mayr, who interacted with David Lack professionally and personally for nearly 40 years, had this to say:

I have known only few people with such deep moral convictions as David Lack. He applied very high standards to his own work and was not inclined to condone shoddiness, superficiality and lack of sincerity in others. This did not always go well with those who preferred to compromise in favour of temporary expediency. David had been raised in an environment in which great stress was layed on moral principles and this attitude was later reinforced by his Christian faith. This explains his extraordinary unselfishness and modesty, and his great devotion to his family, to his students, to his friends, and to all the things that he lived for. The equanimity, indeed serenity, with which he faced death after his terminal cancer had been diagnosed is further evidence of the strength which his faith gave him.4

Like Asa Gray5 before him, and Francis Collins6 after, David Lack was an sincere, devout Christian, as well as a leading scientist who employed evolutionary theory to make brilliant discoveries about the natural world. Though Lack did not see any conflict between his scientific and Christian beliefs, he was sympathetic to the concerns of his fellow Christians. Therefore, ten years after publishing his masterpiece on Darwin’s Finches, Lack wrote another book entitled Evolutionary Theory and Christian Belief: The Unresolved Conflict.

Originally published in 1957, this book deals with the very same science and faith questions that Christians struggle with today— topics like randomness and chance, death in nature, miracles, and evolutionary ethics. While it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to completely resolve these matters, Lack offered numerous insights both as a devout Christian and one of the world’s leading biologists.

Let’s take a brief look at how Lack addressed some of these questions.
Blind Chance or Divine Plan?

Evolutionary theory does not invoke supernatural forces in explaining the history of life on Earth; instead, it relies on naturally-occurring processes to account for the vast diversity of life. Additionally, it explains animal behavior largely in terms of survival and reproduction, without appealing to any higher purpose of life. Taken together, does this imply that God is absent, and that our lives are ultimately meaningless?

David Lack responded,

Behind the criticism that Darwinism means that evolution is either random or rigidly determined lies the fear that evolution proceeds blindly, and not in accordance with a divine plan. This is another problem that really lies outside the terms of reference of biology. It is true that biologists have inferred that, because evolution occurs by natural selection, there is no divine plan; but they are being as illogical as those theologians whom they rightly criticize for inferring that, because there is a divine plan, evolution cannot be the result of natural selection.7

When rendering judgment on the ultimate meaning of life, biologists are speaking from their person beliefs, not from scientific authority. Moreover, Lack pointed out that many science enthusiasts have employed the concept of “randomness” in ambiguous and misleading ways:

Mutations are random in relation to the needs of the animal, but natural selection is not. Selection, as the word implies, is the reverse of chance.8

See more about randomness and divine governance.

In support of his view, Lack pointed out that convergent evolution has produced uncanny resemblances between distantly-related species across the world, notably among marsupials in Australia. Different evolutionary trajectories can lead to very similar results.9
Death in Nature

After addressing concerns about the seeming “randomness” of evolution, Lack turned to another great concern, the role of death in natural selection:

Various writers–some Christian and others agnostic–have been troubled about natural selection not only because it seems too random, but also because it is so unpleasant.10


Image courtesy John Marsh Photography via Flikr

Genetic mutations are generally harmful, and for evolution by natural selection to produce new forms of life, an awful lot of organisms must die. For many Christians, it is inconceivable that a loving and merciful God would allow death on such a vast scale.

But Lack also pointed out that rejecting evolutionary theory doesn’t actually get rid of the problem of death. Regardless of what we think about evolution, the brute fact of mass extinction remains. Fossils of innumerable animals, plants, and microorganisms clearly demonstrate that the vast majority of species that have ever lived are now dead. It may be quite troubling for us to observe that our planet is a giant graveyard of natural history, but rejecting evolution will not change this fact.

Some Christians conclude that death could not have been part of the divine plan; instead, it must be the work of the devil, or the result of human sin. But this interpretation contains an implicit assumption that death is always evil. Is this really true? David Lack offered two intriguing insights:
See more on death and the Fall.


Blue-cheeked Bee-eater (Merops persicus) pair in
courtship, seen in Basai, Gurgaon, India.
Image courtesy Koshy Koshy.

For a population to maintain a stable size, all births must be balanced by a corresponding number of deaths. A world in which no animals die is a world in which no animals are born. That means no reproduction, no courtship, and by implication, no singing birds—much to the dismay of ornithologists and people in love!

Some people, taking cues from Isaiah 11:6-7, suppose that in a perfect world, animals only eat plants. But in fact, plants themselves depend on the bacterial decay of dead organisms. If animals didn't die, then essential nutrients would disappear from the ground, and plants could not continue to grow. Eventually, there would be nothing left for animals to eat, and all life would cease.11

Miracles

Many Christians are uncomfortable with evolutionary theory because it denies a miraculous, supernatural origin of life. They fear that if those miracles are denied, it might lead people to reject the possibility of miracles altogether, including the central feature of the Christian faith—the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

As a devout Christian, David Lack certainly affirmed the fundamental tenets of the gospel. But at the same time, he explained to his readers that invoking miracles to account for unusual features of the natural world is not particularly helpful when trying to deepen our understanding of God’s great multitude of creatures:

[The biologist's] research depends on repeated observations. It need not, as popularly supposed, consist solely, or even mainly of measurements and experiments, but unless events are repeated, they cannot be assessed by science. Hence truly unique events come outside the domain of science, though biologists are not usually convinced when told they must, therefore, leave such problems as miracles to others. For one of the chief ways in which research has advanced is through the discovery of apparent exceptions to the known rules, and if further study shows the exceptions to be replicable, new regularities are revealed from which modified rules can be propounded. This method has been so successful that the biologist tends to doubt whether there are any types of irregularity, or seeming irregularity, that will not yield to it.12

But just because a scientist cannot repeat a particular event doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Both natural history and human history contain unique events that only happened once. As we peer into the past, the difficulty of discerning fact from fiction inspires us to further investigate the mysteries that surround us.
Conclusion

David Lack’s book Evolutionary Theory and Christian Belief was quite insightful, but his enduring achievements took place in evolutionary biology, a place where many Christians are afraid to tread. While it is significant that he himself found no contradiction between his faith and his science, perhaps the greatest testament to the compatibility between Christian faith and evolution is the life he led as a believer in both. As we saw in Ernst Mayr’s candid praise, Lack reflected the light of Christ through both his personal and his professional relationships.

Today, many voices in our culture still insist that evolution is incompatible with a sincere faith in Jesus, but a careful look at history demonstrates otherwise. In the future, perhaps more people of faith will have confidence to study biology knowing that one of the most iconic symbols of evolution—the Galapagos finches—owe their fame in large part to a devout Christian named David Lack.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
PAULSACRAMENTO SAID

In short, Science is about nature and the "how to's" of nature.
God reveals Himself in Nature and science can help us better understand God's revelation IN nature.
Christianity and science have ALWAYS gotten a long but became "unsteady bedfellows" when PEOPLE started to decided that THEIR interpretation of scripture was correct and all others were wrong and IF that interpretation was at odds with what THEY THOUGHT science was saying, then science was wrong.
It also came about when certain scientists with an incorrect view of theology, decide to comment on what THEY THOUGHT the bible meant and how "at odds" that was with sceince.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
YPPUPLLEH SAID

Do not forget about Gregor Mendel ;)
_________________
Love is a warm rubber puppy...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:58 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
TEC SAID

I think science and God (or faith) are absolutely compatible. Science and religion can certainly butt heads though.

Religion can set in place certain doctrines and dogmas that are based on man not understanding (not understanding the bible if it is based off the bible, and not understanding God). Then when science shows evidence of something in conflict with that religious doctrine/dogma... the two are in conflict.

For example... earth being flat, or earth being center of the universe, or the current popular one: evolution/adaptation of species.

On the other hand, science also adapts and evolves as new evidence is presented, often when more advanced tools and knowledge are acquired to find/measure that evidence. So we also misunderstand the physical world around us too.

For example, not long ago, the most accepted theory of the universe was that it was eternal... and so in conflict with a beginning, and in conflict with a universe that could have brought into existence by a creator. But science has since discovered that the universe did have a point of origin. A beginning. This actually took away that particular conflict.

That is what I think science does - takes away the conflict between itself and God (and faith).

The conflicts arise from our misunderstandings in science and the world around us... and our misunderstandings of our Creator (including misunderstandings of what has been written and/or about Him).

Those misunderstandings are often then turned into dogma/doctrine or theories/hypothesis that create conflict where there is none in the first place.

Peace,
tammy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:58 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
PAULSACRAMENTO SAID

I know a few scientists that have no issue with the possibility of God, just as there are some that have no issue with the possibilty of aliens, multiple universes, parallel dimensions and so forth.
The commonality is that we have NO PROOF for any of those things.
For some, the possibility/hypothsis that God may be a "super alien" is far more "acceptable" than the biblical God.

I think the issue is the so called "super natural" and this is what science has issues with, and rightly so since it falls outside the domain of science.
Of course, we must be open to the possibility that supernatural is merely a term used to describe something that science can't explain YET.

Today's supernatural may well be the natural of tomorrow.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:59 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
TEC SAID

Quote:
PaulSacramento wrote:

Christianity and science have ALWAYS gotten a long but became "unsteady bedfellows" when PEOPLE started to decided that THEIR interpretation of scripture was correct and all others were wrong and IF that interpretation was at odds with what THEY THOUGHT science was saying, then science was wrong.
It also came about when certain scientists with an incorrect view of theology, decide to comment on what THEY THOUGHT the bible meant and how "at odds" that was with sceince.





( thumbs up smilie)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:59 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
PAULSACRAMENTO SAID

One thing that 3 years of theology has taught me is that EVERYONE has an interpretation !
LOL !
I no longer argue about one person's interpretation, I just point out that there is an alternative ( if there is one) and let the chips fall where they may.
My personal views are my own and while some may be at odd with orthodoxy at times, others are not.
I know this:
NO ONE is perfect NOR error free, so to state that ANY interpretation is correct and any other is wrong is just the epitome of pride and arrogance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:59 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
AGUEST SAID

Quote:
Quote:
Do you think science and religion are compatible?


I am SO glad you started this thread, dear Glad (the greatest of love and peace to you!), because I have a topic dealing with science that I'd like to post and ask about as well. So, thank you!

I have to say that I don't believe science and religion are compatible. Well, rarely. At some point, the two will conflict because of their respective explanations/interpretations of certain phenomena... and means for doing so. For example, religion often says, "Well, it's a mystery." I have found that NOTHING is a mystery - there is an explanation for EVERYTHING... and none of it is beyond science en totale, but perhaps beyond science's ability to explain NOW.

On the other hand, I absolutely believe that science and SPIRITUALITY are compatible, with science a means to explain physical nature (as someone pointed out), but unable to always explain that which is spiritual... because it is NOT physical. However, that which is spiritual can explain both, including that science often corroborates what is spiritual.

The problem with science and religion seems to be the disdain each school of thinking has for the other, which is often manifested in smarmy comments about each other... lending to great distrust and the inability/refusal for one to actually LISTEN to the other. Each side claims to have "heard it all." Yet, how can THAT be when science is still "discovering" and spirituality is still having things "revealed"? Neither is done... so... that they heavily discount one another on the basis of a few facts... befuddles me. We DON'T know all there is to know, on EITHER side. BOTH admit that... yet cannot 'hear' the other.

This is because each believe they must go to and remain in their respective corners, rather than coming together. A little more acceptance of faith from the scientific community and a little more acceptance of physical facts from the spiritual community. Back to the MIDDLE, rather than farther out to the poles.

But again, this is because many who tout science think they've heard it all from the religious side (they have not, not even close), and those on the religious side (particularly the leaders!) think there's nothing for them to learn from the scientific side (okay, the RCC does make some leeway). Both are wrong.

For me, though, it's what has been brought to light by science that helps me understand what my Lord is speaking of, what occurred, and how. In the same vein, it is what has been brought to light by my Lord that helps me understand what science is speaking of, what occurred, and how. And thus far, the two have NEVER been in conflict!

It is dogma on BOTH sides that separates the scientific and religious communities' thinking as to the commonalities of the physical and the spiritual (which is NOT religious). Such dogma is rooted in hatred and intolerance... which derives from one place: fear. Primarily, fear of having one's beliefs and paradigms "shift". Humans don't do paradigm shifts very often... or very well.

Again, thanks for the opportunity to comment on this! I will post my "science" (well, evolution) question in a few (I need to do some research first, though, to make sure what I am going to ask is accurate).

Peace to you!
_________________
Paz a todos!

Su sirviente, compañera de estudios, y un esclava de Cristo,

SA


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:00 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
ANTHONY SAID

I agree that I see the same kind of dogmatism on both sides. Both sides are often resistant to new ideas that disrupt the status quo. Both sides have a ideology that rests on a tower speculation and assumption that somehow become 'truth'.
_________________
Author of 'Happiness: How to Find It'
www.anthonymathenia.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:00 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
GLADIATOR SAID

Wow! Thanks for all your replies. It is enlightening to read your comments and see such a balanced view on matters of evolution and death. There is indeed a difference between some traditional religious positions and spirituality. The advantage of living in modern times, modern to us anyway, is that we are free to explore things individually and grow at a pace we feel comfortable with.

The information about David Lack provided by paulSacramento, was interesting. A scientist who became a Christian and “offered numerous insights both as a devout Christian and one of the world’s leading biologists.

It does seem that science is becoming more aware that the physical world is not as solid as it appears to be. The more the building blocks of matter are examined, the more unsubstantial they appear. Using their understanding of molecules , they are now producing some incredible materials with elastic qualities. They have much further to go in discovering the true nature of our world. Spiritually minded people are finding the gap between two extreme points of view are narrowing.

Hellpuppy, Tec, AGuest. I have read all your comments but can’t comment right now as I am off out for the evening. It’s almost 7pm here in the UK.

Be seeing you


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:01 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
BURNTHESHIPS SAID

Science exists (or should exist) for us to learn what is.
Religion exists (or should exist) for us to learn how we ought to be.

Science is for learning facts.
Religion is for learning values.

If the two spheres of human endeavor operate in this way, there should be no conflict, and they should remain compatible.

But when religion moves into the realm of science, or when science moves into the realm of religion, there is conflict.

Quote:
Quote:
For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors. (Albert Einstein, 1941)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:01 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
PAULSACRAMENTO SAID

Quote:
Quote:
It does seem that science is becoming more aware that the physical world is not as solid as it appears to be. The more the building blocks of matter are examined, the more unsubstantial they appear. Using their understanding of molecules , they are now producing some incredible materials with elastic qualities. They have much further to go in discovering the true nature of our world. Spiritually minded people are finding the gap between two extreme points of view are narrowing.


The more science discovers about our universe, the more its gets a notion that there is MUCH more to know.
We have to accept and acknowledge that there is no reason to believe that the science of today will be the science of tomorrow.
Look at the science of 1000 years ago and compare, can you imagine the science of 1000 years from NOW?

We already postulate the existence of multiple universe and dimensions (heaven by any other name...) and we already accept that time as we know it had a beginning, things that even 300 years ago would be though "religious quackery" by some science of that time.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:01 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
LEANN SAID

ts so funny this topic came up.. good thing I don't believe in coincidences..

For my brief answer... Yes they are completely compatable, however in society today they are at odds with each other. Basicly because the scientific method is based on results that center around our senses or what we can measure.

Spiritual things work on a different plane but amazingly not so much different.. God created them both.

Thats my brief answer.. long one to come when I can figure out how to explain it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:16 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:55 pm
Posts: 4952
AGUEST SAID

I look forward to it, dear LeAnn (peace to you, dear one!). Please don't forget - LOL!

Peace!

Your servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,

SA


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 226 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group