The Day-Age theory proposes an idea regarding the relativity of chronos time. When we consider the earth was purportedly created in "6 days" - we might ask the question, "What is a day?" For us, living on the earth, it is the time it takes the earth to revolve around it’s own axis. Similarly, we might ask the question, "What is a year?" Once again, for those of us living on the earth it is the time is takes the earth to revolve around the sun. The “Day-Age” theory proposes that the creation story's 7 days was not 7 literal days, or 7 “earth days,” but rather 7 “ages of time.”
It can be argued that if God is telling us how he created the earth, we must accept the possibility that he is talking about his time, not ours. God’s time is relative to the universe, and perhaps something even larger! "Who has measured off the heavens with his fingers?" (Isaiah 40:11). “A thousand years is like a day to you” (Psalm 90). Is it possible God was talking in a time relative to us? Yes. But we MUST also acknowledge the possibility that he was speaking in a time relative to himself. 7 "days" could have been 4.5 billion years.
Which of these theories, religious or scientific, is right and wrong? This is an argument that will likely last as long as the earth itself. But perhaps it is not up to us to win the argument, but instead discover a new way of discussing the issue. Between science and religion there is common ground! Certainly we have shown that God’s work is more than we can possibly understand and much more than what Moses and the people who wrote the early scriptures could understand. So we look to the scriptures, but an understanding of what they do not say (and cannot say). But we also look to science, which uses the remarkable intellec...
... middle of paper ...
...n infinite mind, then you can explain how finite minds could come into existence. In the beginning of time, if you start with particles, after millions of years you get complex particles. You are not going to have minds or consciousness” (Dr. J.P. Moreland, Case for Creator, pp.327-328).
A relatively unexplored question is how we have been gifted with, developed or evolved "consciousness." It is readily understood that the primary uniqueness of humans is self-awareness. Perhaps this
For years we have been arguing that these two ideas, science and religion, are mutually exclusive and incompatible. The issue has brought so much controversy it is less like an argument of two ideas and more like a holy war waged between two religions.
“Although my memory's fading, I remember two things very clearly: I am a great sinner and Christ is a great Savior” (John Newton).
There are different viewpoints on the question “what is the universe made of?” I think that both science and religion offer their own explanation to this topic and they sometimes overlap, which creates contradictions. Therefore, I do not agree with Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial, which claims that there is a fine line separating science from religion. That being said, I think the conflict between science and religion is only in the study of evolution. It is possible for a scientist to be religious if he is not studying evolution, because science is very broad and it has various studies. In this essay, I will talk about the conflict between religion and science by comparing the arguments from Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. I argue that science and religion do overlap but only in some area concerning evolution and the cosmic design. Furthermore, when these overlaps are present it means that there are conflicts and one must choose between science and religion.
In the beginning, God created...the earth and the heavens, or an evolving mass of matter, later to become the heavens and the earth? The conflict between science and religion is a hot topic in many intellectual circles today. One of the more controversial topics is creation versus evolution. How did the world get to where it is right now? How was creation initiated? Is there a Creator or was life created spontaneously? These are some of the questions that boggle minds and set people searching for answers. There is even a conflict within the church: Did God create the heavens and the earth as they are, or did God allow the universe to develop according to natural laws? This conflict between science and religion continues to hold up in our supposed intellectual society. In order to tame this conflict and be true to their faith and science, Christian biologists have an obligation to reflect their Christianity in the realm of biology as well as their biological intellect in the realm of Christianity.
Scientific Naturalism and Christianity are possibly the two most contradictory worldviews that are in our culture today. They are also the two most difficult to understand by one another. There is very little about these two worldviews that they have in common. They are a vast amount of ideas and beliefs held by adherents of each that are different. In order for these two worldviews to successfully co-exist in society, it is important to understand, accept, and learn from each one.
In part one of The Book of Genesis, God created the world. He did this in a total of seven days, taking six days to complete the task and one final day to rest. This final seventh day is now practiced as the holy day or the Sabbath. It deals with the relationship between God and the very natural elements he created that are essential for the sustainability of human life. If someone had extreme literal faith in the Bible, they would believe that God created the world verbatim as what is in The Book of Genesis. This is that on the first day, he created day and night, the second day he created the heavens from earth, the third he divided the lush vegetation from oceans and bodies of water. On the fourth day he created the sun moon and stars, the fifth he made sea creatures, and the sixth day he made humans and animals. Using reason, many people can conclude that the universe and everything in it was not made exactly like stated in The Book of Genesis. Those with a more interpretative faith take the creation of nature in a metaphorical sense. The universe rattles a sense of...
Science and Religion dialogue has been a bitter-sweet topic for many people over the years. The controversy is not only common between one sole community, but affects a variety. The beliefs held about these topics has the potential to personally effect an individual, whether it be positively or negatively. In the United States, we draw only a fine line between religion and science, often failing to realize that the two benefit each other in copious ways but are not meant to interpreted in the same way. Due to this perspective, people seem to be influenced to pick one or the other, when in reality we should treat both science and religion with the same respect and recognize that they are completely separate from one another, along with having individual purposes. John F. Haught, a distinguished research professor at Georgetown University, published a book titled, “Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation”. In it he evaluates each side, persuading the reader that the truth is that both realms may benefit from each other despite the differences emphasized. John F. Haught introduces his audience with four approaches on Science and Religion. Haught’s third approach, contact, is of major significance to aid in the response of: “Does Science Rule out a Personal God?”
Due to the compromised worldview, the interpretation of Genesis 1 can greatly vary among Christians. Some people literally interpret Genesis 1, while other people have slightly different opinion toward it. First interviewee was a Japanese seminary student who is in the same organization with me. When I asked her about the length of a day in Genesis 1, she said that it is 6 days because she literally believes Genesis 1. Also, she thinks that the Earth should be about 6000 years according to her prior knowledge. Then she said that there is no common ancestor because she believes that God created apes and human separately. Consequently, she believes that Adam and Eve were real people. Second interviewee was my dad who is a pastor with a strong belief and firm criteria towards every thing related to Bible. My father’s answer was basically same. He believes that Adam and Eve actually existed, and man and apes are separate beings according to the Bible. However, He showed a slightly different perspective toward the age of Earth. He doubted the young earth theory because Moses’ reference of Genesis 1 should be an indir...
Throughout history, conflicts between faith and reason took the forms of religion and free thinking. In the times of the Old Regime, people like Copernicus and Galileo were often punished for having views that contradicted the beliefs of the church. The strict control of the church was severely weakened around the beginning of the nineteenth century when the Old Regime ended. As the church's control decreased, science and intellectual thinking seemed to advance. While the people in the world became more educated, the church worked harder to maintain its influential position in society and keep the Christian faith strong. In the mid-nineteenth century, the church's task to keep people's faith strong became much harder, due to theories published by free thinkers like Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, David Friedrich Strauss, and others. These men published controversial theories that hammered away at the foundation on which the Christian church was built. As the nineteenth century progressed, more doubts began to arise about the basic faiths of the Christian church.
In the scripture, God formed the universe in six days. This is evident by the words that are used. For example, in the scripture, Moses uses the word “Yom” to mean day. This word is also used at other occasions in the Bible and it literally means the twenty-four-hour day. This thus gives an assurance that
Religion and science are complementary elements to our society. The notion that religion and science should not be merged together, does not mean neglecting to understand the parallel relation between these two concepts and will result in a better understanding of our surroundings. This will put an end to our scientific research and advancement because we will be relying on answers provided by religious books to answer our questions. If we don’t argue whether these answers are right or wrong, we would never have studied space stars or the universe or even our environment and earthly animals. These studies have always provided us with breakthroughs, inventions and discoveries that made our lives better.
The Bible and the written laws of nature are like two different books. These books are written and read in completely different languages. The Bible was written in the view of people of that time; whereas, science laws are constantly written and changed for modern world. Therefore, there always will be some controversy between two thoughts. There are still many unknown things in the world that science is yet to find out. Christianity on the other hand accepts extraordinary occurrences and prevents science from explaining things that it cannot. Christianity is needed to explain unbelievable phenomena that are part of our daily life.
When considering the basis for the understanding of both science and religion it is interesting to distinguish that both are based on an overwhelming desire to define a greater knowledge, and comprehension of the universe that surrounds us. Now while, science has based its knowledge of experimental basis, researcher, and scholarly work; religion
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
The relationship between science and religion has been debated for many years. With strong personal opinions and beliefs, it is not surprising that no progress has been made in this argument. In my opinion, I feel as though religion and science have to be related in some way. There is no possible way people can separate two things that attempt to prove the same facts. My belief is that a metaphorical bridge has to be formed to connect the two. Personally, I feel as though science can be a compliment to religion, and that the scientific discoveries can and should be used to prove that God exists, not disprove it. If science did this, then the relationship between science and religion could be a friendly one. If that happened, people could stop debating and fighting over the two, allowing priests and scientists to talk and work together peacefully.
Science and the study of religion have existed in society for hundreds of years and have agreed and disagreed on many of the same topics. When it comes to solving problems and figuring out complex phenomena we can use both science and the study religion to get answers. While religious studies are not intended to solve problems it can be used and is used just like science to solve problems we have in society. Science is based more on reason and evidence while religion is based more on philosophical ideas and faith. Science is meant to answer problems that require reason and evidence while religion is not.
The interpretation of creation in the book of Genesis gives us insight and certainty that not only did God form the heavens and the earth and all that exists but an in detail play by play of the actual process. This evidence provides non fictional historical facts that counter human speculation. With the creation of earth came the creation of man and the development of the human family, the animals, and the heavens. All of this must be the work of God, a fact that is objective to truth and reality.