4thought.tv

Will science really never answer the ultimate question "How?". At present that is a philosophical question, because like so many things, the answer will be obvious only when it has been found. Why is that so often the case? Also a philosophical question, but it might be a scientific question if that very fact turns out to be key to how we can exist. Anyway, it may be easier to explain How something is created from nothing, than how something is created by God, because then you have to explain God. Supposing there is a cosy uncle in the sky who is omnipotent and eternal (what does that actually mean in concrete as opposed to emotional terms?) is not an explanation.

the story of creation is just that. a story. told by men who didnt know evolution. but it is filled with symbolism and should not be taken literally by anyone, religious or not. its should be read as a -metaphor- for what God 'said'. IMO

It reinforced what I already believed.

.@4thoughttv Surely an example of cognitive dissonance. Dr Bancewicz will know that that sense of awe and wonder when examining nature isn't exclusive to religious belief. It says more about her upbringing in a religious tradition and the hold that thought has on one from childhood. It would've been interesting to know what her thoughts were on biblical stories, which would have thrown up many incompatabilites with her scientific endeavours and experience. Whilst it's true that many of the early scientists did attribute awe and wonder to a religious feeling, as the nature of scientific revelations and the scientific method became more apparent, that way of thinking has had to change #atheism #science

This makes me feel confused.

I would like to know if Dr Ruth was a committed creationist christian before she started her studies in genetics.

I would be surprised if her beliefs in a divine were as a result of her peering down a microscope. I think it's acceptable to wonder about a force creating the universe in a big bang, as Dr Ruth said she does does, but having created that 'hook' it's not very rational to hang any other divine trappings on it, christian or other. Having said that, she is much more rational than some fundamentalist christian on these pages who no doubt take exception to her version of the creation. They will no presumably find problems with her evolutionary views too!

This makes me feel disappointed.

With respect, if only we were to take God at His word instead of bowing to people's theories that cannot be proven, and who's ultimate intent is remove God from the creation process altogether. It's sad that well meaning Christians are too scared to oppose the ideas that fly in the face of God's word. 'Let God be true and every man a liar' - When you get your priorities the right way round, you'll actually discover that the truth can be clearly seen in Creation, and that those scientist who don't conform to the Darwinian view have a very credible and well documented answers. If God used a 'big bang' He would have told us. If He created over millions of years, He would have told us. Fact is, He told us in very simple terms How and when He created, we just need to accept it. Behind every deception, the truth remains unchanged, how about we go and discover it for ourselves.

Why would omnipotent god *need* to create the world over such a lengthy process? Why, if he didn't need to, would he develop life via an evolutionary process which precisely means we don't need to believe in a god to understand nature? If God wants us to know he exists through science - and Christianity on the whole states that he wants us to - he ought to have formed the world in such a way that his existence was obvious.

This makes me feel sad.

Dr. Ruth finds God in the awe and wonder of nature while peering down her microscope, I got my first deep doubts in the existence of a benevolent God, who loves you, yes just you who are reading this thoughts of mine, while visiting a friend at work. He was a pediatric neurosurgeon and I felt like crying in front of the incredile pains and sufferings of those little creatures, whose life expectancy was days or weeks. And the eyes of those mothers empty of tears because they had no more tears left. No, God was not there, may be he was under the lenses of Dr. Ruth's microscope basking in the awe and wonder of his creation.

those that believe there is a god have been taught that this is so when they were children and nothing has changed. aqnd t5hose that were taught than genesis starts with the truth are also able to compare adam and eve and the talking reptile with little red riding hood and the talking wolf so why would they accept one as true and the other as a fairy tale its not lack of inteligence so can we accept that they have a mental block on the subject and that hasn,t changed since they were children

Precisely.

(Sigh...) Isn't the garden beautiful and interesting enough without the need to look for fairies? What is it that makes some people, no matter what they are presented with, say "No, that can't be it, there must be something more"?

This makes me feel perplexed.

Ruth spoke well about the early scientists perceiving their research in terms of worship. These Christian people found their relationship with God provided a strong motivation for their scholarly work. However, what perplexed me is the claimed compatibility of all this and Darwin: Christians understand that God made all things with purpose and in wisdom. Darwinism, however, is inherently purposeless and blind. The mechanisms are chance mutations and natural selection, neither of which point to wisdom and craftsmanship. Biblically, we can refer to organs like the eye and the ear being made for a purpose - seeing and hearing. However, Darwinism presents these organs as devices that enable survival and reproduction. Furthermore, Christians hold to the principle that the meek inherit the Earth, whereas Darwinism claims that the fittest inherit the Earth.

The anthropocentric idea of God as 'someone who ought to do something about it' derives from our evolved social behaviour and instincts. Does a wild animal that preserves itself and its offspring by its wits expect something else to intervene? The ancients got over this by intellectual contortionism - Daniel in the den, Jesus on the cross. The other, more conceptual, notion of an universal creator stems from the collision of our intelligence and speculative ability with the vast mysteries that our knowledge opens up. Faith then serves as a form of censorship against the feeling of exposure. Think about it every time you fly.

This makes me feel happy.

Well done Ruth, spot on. Darwinian evolution only makes sense within geological ˜deep' time. The Big Bang is supported by Arno Penzias' co-discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, a theory he believed is entirely consistent with Genesis 1 and the Psalms. As a Jewish child in Nazi Germany, Penzias fled to Great Britain on the Kindertransport " a humanitarian rescue mission largely organized by Jews and Quakers. Penzias shared the Nobel Prize for his work, as did many Jewish scientists who escaped the Holocaust. Blaise Pascal " 17th century mathematician and co-founder of probability theory " based his Christian faith on the positive correlation between post-Biblical Jewish history and the Old Testament " something which anyone can systematically check for themselves.

Ruth I felt the same feeling of awe and wonderment when I first came across the structure of the human cell. However I used my undertanding of chemistry to explain it. I still find it amazing but I understand it scientifically. You seem to have suspended your scientist's drive to seek an explanation to your feelings of awe and accepted a probably pre-existing bias to justify a creator.

This makes me feel happy. It reinforced what I already believed.

Agree completely.
For some, religion has lost credibility because there are so many denominations all claiming to be the unique path to heaven.
The Theist looks a little deeper into why they behave this way and finds that denominations tend to have a group of very ordinary folk whose lives over the centuries and across the world demonstrate a meaningful relationship with God.
It works for them and they are rightly very excited about it, but it is unfortunate that they think their faith is the only way.
It demonstrates that even with the many weaknesses conventional Religious Faiths may have, God is still able to use them to help us reach our spiritual heritage which He is still preparing for those who freely chose to love and serve Him.
Hill top experiences, breath taking beauty, moving music, great friendships that we may experience in our short physical life are nothing compared to the Heavenly life when we are freed from the bonds of time and can explore the Universe and meet up with wonderful folk from right down the centuries as well as worship God in a way we can only dream about now.
Creating intelligent, self-concious intelligent life with free will that is independent of the Maker is an incredibly complicated series of processes.

What we call Evolution is just one part of it.

This makes me feel disappointed. I don't understand the speaker's point of view at all.

I agree with Ruth. Also, we must be careful to avoid giving skeptics the impression that all believers merely see God as an alternative 'explanation' for the randomness of evolution. In evolutionary science, randomness is fundamental. But, as Ruth mentioned, God has traditionally been regarded as sustainer as well as creator. The God of the Bible directed 'natural' processes and 'chance' events. Anti-evolution 'creationists' (so-called) forget this when they campaign against 'natural' explanations involving 'chance'. Their god is too small. Our Creator is surely big enough to rule over 'chance' without introducing any statistical anomalies. If God encompasses science, it follows that God must be as invisible to science as an ocean is to a fish. Intellectual arguments have no bearing, either way, on our relationship with God. This is truly an affair of the heart.

One of the fundemental truths of the Bible is that death is the result of mans sin. If this were not true, then Jesus didn't have to come to Earth as man and take our punishment for sin. It would have been pointless, as a just God could not hold us accountable for it. If God used death and suffering as part of his creation process, and death is the result of sin, then sin (disobedience to God) must have existed before man and we are not responsible for it. Sorry Ruth, but your point of view is fundementally inconsistent with the Christian faith.

This debate, inspired by Ruth's contribution, has been very interesting and informative. Some of the 'threads' have carried the arguments to a sophisticated level. I do not see how such a debate could harm school children, so long as it was pitched at a level appropriate for their age. As Professor Michael Reiss has pointed out, and this discussion has demonstrated,there are scientific matters worthy of debate connected to this topic. Why should school children be prevented from hearing of such things? How can we in the free UK justify such censorship?

Ruth is right that we should rescue the 'creationist' term from the narrow view of 24/6 creation. All Christians are surely creationists.

It reinforced what I already believed.

The Bible says both, that it took 6 mythical days and that it took a process of evolution. We all know the bit where it says 6 mythical days.
The Bible advocates evolution when it claims God is a man. Richard Dawkins read the Bible and it clearly said to him that the God of the Bible is a man but to accommodate the prophets the God of the Bible is like a man.
Creationists have been in denial and Dawkins is an atheist but don't let creationism fool you because when it comes to literacy I am going with Dawkins and Hawking. Atheists are hypocrites but not on this point and if you play with the idea you will be slapped in the face with evolution.

The big bang theory has been debunked by some evolutionists.There are many different theories regarding the big bang because nobody witnessed it or knew the conditions-we can only make assumptions based on mathematical equations-if there is a margin of error it could be wrong.science is ever changing & progressive.it is not very scientific to make assumptions or fill in the gaps darwin left behind.there is clear evidence to suggest the earth is young not millions years[mary schweitzer-blood cells found in dinosaur bones & ancient civilisations 12,000 years[turkey,serbis,mexico]evolution is inconclusive as you cannot ignore evidence to the contrary.science should be inclusive not exclusive just because there is more money in evolution than creation.you have to be open minded.