Choosing Science or God

View the complete video Science & God at: http://dod.org/programs/the-search-fo...

Some modern day theories seem to pit science against God, but why? Do you have to choose or can you intellectually believe in both? In Science & God, author and social critic Os Guinness engages Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox in a conversation that explores this tension, with calculations that subtract neither God nor science. Lennox looks at both historical and contemporary explanations of the universe, offering his unique perspective. Decide for yourself what to think about this important debate as you examine both scientific and theological perspectives.

©2015 RBC Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

Follow Day of Discovery on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/dayofdiscovery

Science & God - Introduction

View the complete video Science & God at: http://dod.org/programs/the-search-fo...

Some modern day theories seem to pit science against God, but why? Do you have to choose or can you intellectually believe in both? In Science & God, author and social critic Os Guinness engages Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox in a conversation that explores this tension, with calculations that subtract neither God nor science. Lennox looks at both historical and contemporary explanations of the universe, offering his unique perspective. Decide for yourself what to think about this important debate as you examine both scientific and theological perspectives.

©2015 RBC Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

Follow Day of Discovery on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/dayofdiscovery

Science, Atheism & Freewill - Dr. Ravi Zacharias respond

God vs. science? (Larry King Live)

Every year scientists come up with more evidence that seems to support evolution. Whats a
six-day, young-earth creationist to do? How can you support biblical claims that so obviously seem to contradict modern science?

xpelled - Ben Stein takes on Scientism's anti-ID Orthodoxy

From http://www.twoorthree.net

Ben Stein doesn't want to give you money right now. He wants to give you some truth. What truth is that? That "Big Science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom," and are suppressing dissent, especially when it comes to evolution and intelligent design. Coming February 2008. Check out the Expelled trailer. You can also read the press release:

What freedom-loving student wouldn't be outraged to discover that his high school science teacher is teaching a theory as indisputable fact, and that university professors unmercifully crush any fellow scientists who dare question the prevailing system of belief? This isn't the latest Hollywood comedy; it's a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

Research Points to Single Origin for Humans

From Science Daily:

Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo erectus to home sapiens in different areas.

Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins....

To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work...."

Carson on Science and Origins

The SBJT form posed the following question to D. A. Carson: "In any complex debate, it is not long before there are “hidden” elements in the discussion, i.e., elements that are gumming up the integrity of debate because one side or the other fails to recognize their existence and significance. What 'hidden' elements are there in current discussions over science and origins?"

You can read his response here.

Professing To Be Wise: Science & the Search for Origins

From D.R. Brooker @ http://drbrooker.net/?p=689

I read this article today from the New Scientist. The first paragraph, particularly the last sentence, caught my attention:

What gruesome fate awaits our universe? Some physicists have argued that it is doomed to be ripped apart by runaway dark energy, while others think it is bouncing through an endless series of big bangs and big crunches. Now these two ideas are being combined to create another option, in which our universe ultimately shatters into billions of pieces, with each shard growing into a whole new universe. The model could solve the mystery of why our early universe was surprisingly well ordered.

There is no mystery as to the ordering of the universe. The answer has been shown to everyone:

“…because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools…” (Romans 1:19-22)

If the answer has been made known to everyone, what causes opinions on origins to differ? Grace; grace that has caused the darkened mind to see. Those left in their darkened state are hardened in their unbelief, while they continue to search aimlessly for the answers that are right before their eyes. These scientists, who have spent a lifetime denying the Creator, will have an awful eternity to rethink all the evidence.

TIME on God vs. Science

By Albert Mohler @ http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php/

"Can religion stand up to the progress of science?" That is the question posed by TIME magazine in its current cover article, "God vs. Science." The article, written by David Van Biema, looks at the expanding fronts which pit scientific claims against Christian truth claims.

As the article sets the question:

Can religion stand up to the progress of science? This debate long predates Darwin, but the antireligion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience. Brain imaging illustrates--in color!--the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus. Like Freudianism before it, the field of evolutionary psychology generates theories of altruism and even of religion that do not include God. Something called the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology speculates that ours may be but one in a cascade of universes, suddenly bettering the odds that life could have cropped up here accidentally, without divine intervention. (If the probabilities were 1 in a billion, and you've got 300 billion universes, why not?)

For some time, this battle was said to have been declared by the theologians. Now, the situation is quite different. As Mr. Van Biema explains, "The market seems flooded with books by scientists describing a caged death match between science and God--with science winning, or at least chipping away at faith's underlying verities."

The list of these book-writing, theism-opposing scientists is long and growing -- including Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and a host of others. A new author to be added to that list is Marc Hauser of Harvard University, who argues in Moral Minds that our notions of right and wrong are products of evolution, not theistic belief.

From the article:

Dawkins and his army have a swarm of articulate theological opponents, of course. But the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science, and an argument in which one party stands immovable on Scripture and the other immobile on the periodic table doesn't get anyone very far. Most Americans occupy the middle ground: we want it all. We want to cheer on science's strides and still humble ourselves on the Sabbath. We want access to both MRIs and miracles. We want debates about issues like stem cells without conceding that the positions are so intrinsically inimical as to make discussion fruitless. And to balance formidable standard bearers like Dawkins, we seek those who possess religious conviction but also scientific achievements to credibly argue the widespread hope that science and God are in harmony--that, indeed, science is of God.

The article also presents a dialogue of sorts between Dawkins and Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Research Project. Collins takes Dawkins to task for his scientific reductionism, while Dawkins presses his case against belief in God.

In the end, neither man gives ground in the brief exchange. The big lesson from all this is the importance of worldview commitments. The theist and the atheist (scientific or otherwise) are both basing their thoughts on a framework of ideas and presuppositions. These worldviews, correctly understood, lead to the ideas and convictions that govern talk about belief or disbelief in God. A significant change of mind on this great question will require a significant change in the fundamental worldview. That is why these debates are so intractable -- and so enduring.