Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Magnum44; allmendream
Well....To be completely **honest** scientist would say:

” The theory isn't holding up in “X,Y, and Z” areas. We need to 1) change our approach, or 2) attempt to find an explanation that is **rational** and scientifically based. “

At this point the philosophers and theologians could speculate all they want. In his off-time the scientist could be a philosophical and religious as he wanted too.

I will give 2 examples:

As I posted earlier, my husband was hired to be a biochemist. He did exactly that because that was his contract, his word, and his agreement, with the company. If he had brought theology to the application and analysis of his job that would have been stealing the company's time. At work he seriously tried to give his **work** his full attention as a **biochemist**!.

Yet,....I **know** that he was personally was **very** prayerful over all his projects, and prayed often for inspiration and guidance in his profession.

( And, NO, allmendream, he did not pray aloud at work!)

In my own profession, my patients were paying me for my full **professional** attention. Also, the doctor patient relationship is not one of equal power. I would have been stealing the patients time and money to have engaged in religious discussion and I would have been abusing my position of power. However,....As my down time in my office permitted, I prayed over every one of my patients, and I believe that is why many patients commented how comfortable they felt in my office.

( And, NO, allmendream, he did not pray aloud at work!)

In conclusion:

If a scientist agrees to work as a scientist, then he needs to bring the full force of his scientific training to the job. If “X Y or Z” doesn't fit he needs to start looking for a rational and scientific reason for why it is not.

An **honest** scientist would say, “These areas are not making sense. We're looking into why it isn't.” He should **not** be speculating about God because that is **not** the job he was contracted to do. To do so would be stealing the company, school, or research lab's time and money.

If certain aspects of the Theory of Evolution break down and don't make statistical or rational sense then and **honest** scientist would start looking for a rational reason why “X, Y, or Z” exists, and **admit** that in the areas of “X, Y, or Z” do not conform to the theory.

And honest scientist would NOT drum out of the profession a scientist who rightly said, “Hey! Look guys! “X, Y, and Z” don't fit and aren't making any sense!”

Scientists must **not** seek to use science to affirm the existence of God. Doing that would not be the scientific method. Two things could happen scientifically and theologically:

1) In being so determined to prove intelligent design the scientist would be misusing his profession and possibly even overlook a part of the natural world God DID create!

God does not want us to misuse our talents.

2) On the theological and philosophical level, the scientist would be building a Tower of Babel. Any scientist who thinks they can **prove** God exists is overreaching in an extreme way.

A religious scientists needs to stick to the job of science. Let the natural world be revealed through his work, and trust that God's presence and wonder will be revealed in it due time.

248 posted on 01/09/2009 4:25:05 PM PST by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies ]


To: wintertime

I agree with what you said, but I would apply your statements about not trying to prove that God exists equally to not trying to prove he does not exist. Darwins theory in its original form attempts to do so by assuming life springs forth on its own from the elements. He was unaware of the “intelligent machinery” of DNA, RNA, etc. We now know more the Darwin did, yet continue to have scientists try to prove his theory when its is all but disproved, almost entirely as a means of rejecting creationism.

When the theory breaks down, its time to find a better theory, not mislead to continue the politically correct one. If scientist want to continue to search for the missing fossil links, fine. But to not point out the holes in Darwin is disengenous.

The discoveries of DNA/RNA mechanisms seem more in line with an intelligent design theory. The remaining question is: does one believe that some extraterrestrial life that spring forth all on its own from the early elements could evolve on its own to create “intelligent life” for us here on Earth, or was intelligent life here on Earth created by God? Here is where my faith guides my common sense on this issue.

But again, I am an engineer, not an evolutionary theory scientist.


279 posted on 01/11/2009 9:01:22 AM PST by Magnum44 (Terrorism is a disease, precise application of superior force is the ONLY cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson