Helllllloooooo!
Anybody there?
This is the opening salvo in an attempt to contact open-minded people who have questions regarding science and 'religion'.
I have been a Christian and a scientist for over 35 years. During that time lots of questions have been fired at me and by me, challenging my beliefs. To this day, there haven't been any which have shattered my faith - in fact many have confirmed it.
I hope you will take the time to write and open up honest discussion regarding the sciences - many of the questions will be above me but hopefully by research and discussion a better understanding will offer you a different way of looking at the world - ie, other than Darwinian. You don't have to become a Creationist overnight, but you never know - a little light is a very powerful thing!
Point 1. Since Darwin was a geologist, many of his interpretations of observations were made on the basis of understanding promulgated by Lyall. This looked at the physical world as a 'steady state' and changes had taken millions of years to produce what Darwin saw. This theory is no longer tenable, with evidence of rapid glaciation, pyroclastic flow and Surtsey Island all being evidence of very rapid geologic change. Any comments?
Hey, good to see a pro-Scientific Christian blog.
ReplyDeleteI have always been interested in the concept of the Pangea or Gondwanaland, a super-connected land mass.
The concept was originally suggested by Eduard Suess, an Austrian geologist. He hypothesised that because certain types of plant could be found in India, South America, southern Africa, Australia, and Antarctica, then all the lands must have been connected.
While this is interesting, it has a similar problem to some of the hypotheses proposed by Darwin - they were a) difficult to test and b) a very difficult suggestion to accept.
For instance, we can look at the Burren in County Clare in Ireland and see an amazing assortment of plants that should not co-exist in the same location yet the geology and climate of the region allow diversity to exist.
Hypotheses are almost always based on some observation. I propose that Suess, Darwin and others were brilliant scientists but nevertheless incorrect. Not because of their lack of intelligence but simply because their observations were done at micro-scales.
We owe a great debt to the scientific literature as it advertises all the intricate details of the earth's surface. Geography is the study of difference and that makes it very difficult to accept and adhere to broad generalisations about how the earth functions.
I certainly cannot discount the idea of a pangea. Indeed in Genesis 7:11 it talks about the fountains of the great deep being broken up. This followed the tower of Babel. The tower of Babel itself necessitated either a) a connected land mass for all people to congregate in one point or b) an advanced society that had developed techniques to travel.
Also in Genesis 1:9 it says "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so". So from my reading, science doesn't "bury" God, it actually supports him.
Looking forward to any constructive criticism!