How?

[Faith]

How can this be explained since us Christians believe that life came from God and as described in Genesis? Every time I start to feel good about my faith, some scientist comes along and ruins it.




https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/lightning-origin-of-life-1.5952917

 

[tango]

The first words of the article - lightning strikes may have been key (emphasis mine). It's a theory trying to explain something. No more and no less valid than any other theory at this stage. Even if it's true it doesn't mean there is no God - the theory that lightning strikes turned something not-living into something living still can't explain how the something not-living got there, nor does it explain how the conditions arose to trigger the lightning in the first place.

 

[JRT]

Hello Hope --- I am a retired scientist. My field was nuclear physics. I have also been a Christian for 77 years. A great many Christians, myself included, regard Genesis and some other parts of the Bible to be non-literal documents that should not be regarded as historical but rather be read for their spiritual value. Part of this argument is that Genesis was written about three thousand years ago for a people who were largely illiterate and entirely pre-scientific. The authors spoke to these people in language they could understand using images that were culturally familiar to them.

Two scientific ideas touch on this topic. The first, and most familiar, is the Theory of Evolution which explains how life came to be after the first living cell came into being or was created. The ToE has an enormous level of evidentiary verification and usefulness and is the basis of all the life and earth sciences. The second idea is Abiogenesis which attempts to explain in a perfectly natural way how that first living cell came to be. It is a field of active scientific research that has not yet reached the level of being a theory. It is at best a hypothesis or a collection of hypotheses. The article you cited is one hypothesis that is being looked into.

I should also mention that the understanding that the Bible should be read literally has been debated for many centuries and has really only gained traction in fundamentalist and evangelical churches in the USA.

I hope that I have answered your question. I am open to follow ups.

 

[Lamb]

How can this be explained since us Christians believe that life came from God and as described in Genesis? Every time I start to feel good about my faith, some scientist comes along and ruins it.




https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/lightning-origin-of-life-1.5952917

As the two others have said, it's merely a hypothesis and not something that all scientists claim is how it happened. Scientists are always trying to figure things out and what we've learned from history is that at times they get things right and other times they're horribly wrong.

Your faith is in God, not what men claim as to the origins of life here on our planet.

 

[tango]

Some people, generally those who don't believe in any gods, like to refer to the concept of "god of the gaps", where science explains more and more and as science advances religions end up with a smaller and smaller space to say "God did it", because there is less and less that we no longer understand.

On the flipside I personally can't help find it remarkable that something as small as an atom is made up of a nucleus with orbiting electrons, while something as large as a solar system is made up of a nucleus (a star) with orbiting planets.

 

[Josiah]

How can this be explained since us Christians believe that life came from God and as described in Genesis? Every time I start to feel good about my faith, some scientist comes along and ruins it.

Hope1960


Science and Religion...


I have a Ph.D. in physics. My older sister has a Ph.D. in biology. We both accept science and we both accept the Bible as inerrant. I'm Lutheran, she's Catholic. We are both strong, active Christians. She still works as a scientist, I did but no longer do.


In some ways, Science and Christianity are focused on VERY different things with VERY different objectives. They need not be joined at the hip. They need not be placed in opposition to one another.


Science is a HUMAN effort to understand the physical (as opposed to spiritual) world around us. Scientists attempt to develop theories to answer physical questions: Why is there air? What is a cloud? Why is the Earth round? What happens if you kick a bull? Practical, earthly, THIS LIFE, kind of questions. Some purely matters of curiosity (is there life on Mars?), some very practical (How to I get cooper out of the ore?). As one who did science for several years (I'm now a businessman), I can tell you that while the study of Science SHOULD (and yeah, sometimes does) yield profound humility and the awareness of how dumb we are and how little we know, like most human endeavors, it often leads to pride, big claims and shouts of how smart self is and sure our theories are (and of course, science is driven by GRANTS and you only get free money IF you boast of how smart and certain you are). Science evolves (constantly) because knowledge evolves AND (just as important) philosophy evolves. It's ever-changing.

Religion has to do with RELATIONSHIPS - with the Divine, with other people, and ultimately with the whole of creation (the physical world around us). The focus is not how to get cooper out of the ore but how to live in the reality of these relationships. What makes such "religion" is that it embraces not JUST people/physics but also the Divine, it embraces the SUPER-natural and not ONLY natural. Some would argue religion too is a human effort, an ever-evolving effort, that involves both "theoretical" (the Trinity?) and practical (authority of the Bible). But Christianity (like all Western religions) holds that it is divinely revealed, not a produce of our brains but of God's revelation... and thus we accept it as True. As such, to the extent that is affirmed, Christian teaching tend to be quite stable.



There CAN be times when they MAY seem to be in conflict. Some Scriptures may be seen as teaching the Earth is square, flat and very small. And many Christians held to just that ("the Bible says so!"). Scripture may be seen as teaching the entire planet was covered by water in a big flood, and some Christians hold to just that. Current science disagrees with both of those scientific positions (and I don't predict that will change). I see 3 options:

1. The Bible is wrong (at least when it conflicts with current science).
2. Science is wrong (or at least when it is variant with the Bible; correct otherwise).
3. Both are potentially right and wrong IN THEIR OWN CONCERN.

[ The LCMS has favored #2 above]

Let's take that classic case of the Bible and a small, square, flat Planet Earth... Funny, because since those astronauts took that picture of the Planet from our Moon, you don't find too many Christians shouting about how Science is wrong cuz the Bible says the Planet is FLAT and SQUARE. They insist (now!) that those verses aren't addressing astrophysics or geology but RELIGION. And you find Christians suddenly admitting that Hebrew does not have a word for our planet ("earth" = dirt, the ground, our land) and that there is a RELIGION point, not a SCIENCE point. And an honest astrophysicist (if you can find one, lol) will admit that just because he HOLDS that the Big Bang happened does NOT mean ergo God did not create the universe, the MOST he/she can say is that if GOD did, it SEEMS He used this process. The Bible doesn't address the HOW (God just willed it), Science doesn't address the WHY or WHO. Maybe.... as we read God's Word to us.... maybe the point is not to provide us with a biology and geology textbook but to reveal Himself to us - His will, His heart (Law and Gospel)? To address RELIGION and not science? That's a question....

Now, as BOTH a Christian and a Scientist, who doesn't demand that either echos the other, there can be problems. The Bible makes a RELIGIOUS "issue" out of the Seventh Day of Creation (the Account in Genesis 1 rather than Genesis 2).... if there was no literal "Seventh DAY" then we have a problem. And while evolution COULD be seen simply as how God created our species - the special creation, his "chosen" - similarly to how we can see the Big Bang as how God brought this physical reality into existence....but it SEEMS we then have a problem with ADAM...the Bible makes an issue of him as a singular, real, literal person (even though his name only means "person"). I'm not quick to dismiss those (RARE!) cases where we do seem to have a conflict between science and religion.... and I'm not quick to just automatically dismiss one or the other. Rather, I simply admit I don't know. I don't allow my acknowledgement that there are a handful of "problems" (in both religion AND science!) to cause me to toss out the whole enchilada, the proverbial baby with the bathwater. I simply acknowledge.... I am a humble man with a puny brain and a very, very, very limited knowledge and intelligence - I don't have all the answers (heck, I may not have any answers). But I continue to seek.... in every realm.... TRUTH is not the enemy, neither God or science is opposed to truth.

But I don't look to science for religion (unlike Tom Cruise) and I don't look to religion for science. I don't look to Religion for how to green up my lawn... and I don't look to Science to tell me the value of my children or my relationship to God. While I see the limitations in BOTH ... while I acknowledge a FEW problems in embracing both.... I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I accept my limitations are perhaps where the problem lies. Luther "Humility is the basic of all good theology." I'd say, it is for ALL seeking of truth.


I hope that helps.


Blessings on your Holy Week observation....


Dr. Josiah (lol)



.

 

[Faith]

Hope1960


Science and Religion...


I have a Ph.D. in physics. My older sister has a Ph.D. in biology. We both accept science and we both accept the Bible as inerrant. I'm Lutheran, she's Catholic. We are both strong, active Christians. She still works as a scientist, I did but no longer do.


In some ways, Science and Christianity are focused on VERY different things with VERY different objectives. They need not be joined at the hip. They need not be placed in opposition to one another.


Science is a HUMAN effort to understand the physical (as opposed to spiritual) world around us. Scientists attempt to develop theories to answer physical questions: Why is there air? What is a cloud? Why is the Earth round? What happens if you kick a bull? Practical, earthly, THIS LIFE, kind of questions. Some purely matters of curiosity (is there life on Mars?), some very practical (How to I get cooper out of the ore?). As one who did science for several years (I'm now a businessman), I can tell you that while the study of Science SHOULD (and yeah, sometimes does) yield profound humility and the awareness of how dumb we are and how little we know, like most human endeavors, it often leads to pride, big claims and shouts of how smart self is and sure our theories are (and of course, science is driven by GRANTS and you only get free money IF you boast of how smart and certain you are). Science evolves (constantly) because knowledge evolves AND (just as important) philosophy evolves. It's ever-changing.

Religion has to do with RELATIONSHIPS - with the Divine, with other people, and ultimately with the whole of creation (the physical world around us). The focus is not how to get cooper out of the ore but how to live in the reality of these relationships. What makes such "religion" is that it embraces not JUST people/physics but also the Divine, it embraces the SUPER-natural and not ONLY natural. Some would argue religion too is a human effort, an ever-evolving effort, that involves both "theoretical" (the Trinity?) and practical (authority of the Bible). But Christianity (like all Western religions) holds that it is divinely revealed, not a produce of our brains but of God's revelation... and thus we accept it as True. As such, to the extent that is affirmed, Christian teaching tend to be quite stable.



There CAN be times when they MAY seem to be in conflict. Some Scriptures may be seen as teaching the Earth is square, flat and very small. And many Christians held to just that ("the Bible says so!"). Scripture may be seen as teaching the entire planet was covered by water in a big flood, and some Christians hold to just that. Current science disagrees with both of those scientific positions (and I don't predict that will change). I see 3 options:

1. The Bible is wrong (at least when it conflicts with current science).
2. Science is wrong (or at least when it is variant with the Bible; correct otherwise).
3. Both are potentially right and wrong IN THEIR OWN CONCERN.

[ The LCMS has favored #2 above]

Let's take that classic case of the Bible and a small, square, flat Planet Earth... Funny, because since those astronauts took that picture of the Planet from our Moon, you don't find too many Christians shouting about how Science is wrong cuz the Bible says the Planet is FLAT and SQUARE. They insist (now!) that those verses aren't addressing astrophysics or geology but RELIGION. And you find Christians suddenly admitting that Hebrew does not have a word for our planet ("earth" = dirt, the ground, our land) and that there is a RELIGION point, not a SCIENCE point. And an honest astrophysicist (if you can find one, lol) will admit that just because he HOLDS that the Big Bang happened does NOT mean ergo God did not create the universe, the MOST he/she can say is that if GOD did, it SEEMS He used this process. The Bible doesn't address the HOW (God just willed it), Science doesn't address the WHY or WHO. Maybe.... as we read God's Word to us.... maybe the point is not to provide us with a biology and geology textbook but to reveal Himself to us - His will, His heart (Law and Gospel)? To address RELIGION and not science? That's a question....

Now, as BOTH a Christian and a Scientist, who doesn't demand that either echos the other, there can be problems. The Bible makes a RELIGIOUS "issue" out of the Seventh Day of Creation (the Account in Genesis 1 rather than Genesis 2).... if there was no literal "Seventh DAY" then we have a problem. And while evolution COULD be seen simply as how God created our species - the special creation, his "chosen" - similarly to how we can see the Big Bang as how God brought this physical reality into existence....but it SEEMS we then have a problem with ADAM...the Bible makes an issue of him as a singular, real, literal person (even though his name only means "person"). I'm not quick to dismiss those (RARE!) cases where we do seem to have a conflict between science and religion.... and I'm not quick to just automatically dismiss one or the other. Rather, I simply admit I don't know. I don't allow my acknowledgement that there are a handful of "problems" (in both religion AND science!) to cause me to toss out the whole enchilada, the proverbial baby with the bathwater. I simply acknowledge.... I am a humble man with a puny brain and a very, very, very limited knowledge and intelligence - I don't have all the answers (heck, I may not have any answers). But I continue to seek.... in every realm.... TRUTH is not the enemy, neither God or science is opposed to truth.

But I don't look to science for religion (unlike Tom Cruise) and I don't look to religion for science. I don't look to Religion for how to green up my lawn... and I don't look to Science to tell me the value of my children or my relationship to God. While I see the limitations in BOTH ... while I acknowledge a FEW problems in embracing both.... I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I accept my limitations are perhaps where the problem lies. Luther "Humility is the basic of all good theology." I'd say, it is for ALL seeking of truth.


I hope that helps.


Blessings on your Holy Week observation....


Dr. Josiah (lol)



.

Thanks! Did you once say you were LCMS or something else?

 

[Faith]

Hope1960


Science and Religion...


I have a Ph.D. in physics. My older sister has a Ph.D. in biology. We both accept science and we both accept the Bible as inerrant. I'm Lutheran, she's Catholic. We are both strong, active Christians. She still works as a scientist, I did but no longer do.


In some ways, Science and Christianity are focused on VERY different things with VERY different objectives. They need not be joined at the hip. They need not be placed in opposition to one another.


Science is a HUMAN effort to understand the physical (as opposed to spiritual) world around us. Scientists attempt to develop theories to answer physical questions: Why is there air? What is a cloud? Why is the Earth round? What happens if you kick a bull? Practical, earthly, THIS LIFE, kind of questions. Some purely matters of curiosity (is there life on Mars?), some very practical (How to I get cooper out of the ore?). As one who did science for several years (I'm now a businessman), I can tell you that while the study of Science SHOULD (and yeah, sometimes does) yield profound humility and the awareness of how dumb we are and how little we know, like most human endeavors, it often leads to pride, big claims and shouts of how smart self is and sure our theories are (and of course, science is driven by GRANTS and you only get free money IF you boast of how smart and certain you are). Science evolves (constantly) because knowledge evolves AND (just as important) philosophy evolves. It's ever-changing.

Religion has to do with RELATIONSHIPS - with the Divine, with other people, and ultimately with the whole of creation (the physical world around us). The focus is not how to get cooper out of the ore but how to live in the reality of these relationships. What makes such "religion" is that it embraces not JUST people/physics but also the Divine, it embraces the SUPER-natural and not ONLY natural. Some would argue religion too is a human effort, an ever-evolving effort, that involves both "theoretical" (the Trinity?) and practical (authority of the Bible). But Christianity (like all Western religions) holds that it is divinely revealed, not a produce of our brains but of God's revelation... and thus we accept it as True. As such, to the extent that is affirmed, Christian teaching tend to be quite stable.



There CAN be times when they MAY seem to be in conflict. Some Scriptures may be seen as teaching the Earth is square, flat and very small. And many Christians held to just that ("the Bible says so!"). Scripture may be seen as teaching the entire planet was covered by water in a big flood, and some Christians hold to just that. Current science disagrees with both of those scientific positions (and I don't predict that will change). I see 3 options:

1. The Bible is wrong (at least when it conflicts with current science).
2. Science is wrong (or at least when it is variant with the Bible; correct otherwise).
3. Both are potentially right and wrong IN THEIR OWN CONCERN.

[ The LCMS has favored #2 above]

Let's take that classic case of the Bible and a small, square, flat Planet Earth... Funny, because since those astronauts took that picture of the Planet from our Moon, you don't find too many Christians shouting about how Science is wrong cuz the Bible says the Planet is FLAT and SQUARE. They insist (now!) that those verses aren't addressing astrophysics or geology but RELIGION. And you find Christians suddenly admitting that Hebrew does not have a word for our planet ("earth" = dirt, the ground, our land) and that there is a RELIGION point, not a SCIENCE point. And an honest astrophysicist (if you can find one, lol) will admit that just because he HOLDS that the Big Bang happened does NOT mean ergo God did not create the universe, the MOST he/she can say is that if GOD did, it SEEMS He used this process. The Bible doesn't address the HOW (God just willed it), Science doesn't address the WHY or WHO. Maybe.... as we read God's Word to us.... maybe the point is not to provide us with a biology and geology textbook but to reveal Himself to us - His will, His heart (Law and Gospel)? To address RELIGION and not science? That's a question....

Now, as BOTH a Christian and a Scientist, who doesn't demand that either echos the other, there can be problems. The Bible makes a RELIGIOUS "issue" out of the Seventh Day of Creation (the Account in Genesis 1 rather than Genesis 2).... if there was no literal "Seventh DAY" then we have a problem. And while evolution COULD be seen simply as how God created our species - the special creation, his "chosen" - similarly to how we can see the Big Bang as how God brought this physical reality into existence....but it SEEMS we then have a problem with ADAM...the Bible makes an issue of him as a singular, real, literal person (even though his name only means "person"). I'm not quick to dismiss those (RARE!) cases where we do seem to have a conflict between science and religion.... and I'm not quick to just automatically dismiss one or the other. Rather, I simply admit I don't know. I don't allow my acknowledgement that there are a handful of "problems" (in both religion AND science!) to cause me to toss out the whole enchilada, the proverbial baby with the bathwater. I simply acknowledge.... I am a humble man with a puny brain and a very, very, very limited knowledge and intelligence - I don't have all the answers (heck, I may not have any answers). But I continue to seek.... in every realm.... TRUTH is not the enemy, neither God or science is opposed to truth.

But I don't look to science for religion (unlike Tom Cruise) and I don't look to religion for science. I don't look to Religion for how to green up my lawn... and I don't look to Science to tell me the value of my children or my relationship to God. While I see the limitations in BOTH ... while I acknowledge a FEW problems in embracing both.... I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I accept my limitations are perhaps where the problem lies. Luther "Humility is the basic of all good theology." I'd say, it is for ALL seeking of truth.


I hope that helps.


Blessings on your Holy Week observation....


Dr. Josiah (lol)



.

Speaking of Tom Cruise, that Scientology is some crazy stuff. I read Dianetics many years ago and from what I remember, it’s really nuts.
I personally know of only one person who’s a Scientologist, or at least he was, don’t know about now.

 

[Josiah]

Thanks! Did you once say you were LCMS or something else?

Yes. I belong to an LCMS church. And I also noted to you I was a voting delegate to the Tampa Convention.


.

 

[Faith]

Yes. I belong to an LCMS church. And I also noted to you I was a voting delegate to the Tampa Convention.


.

Oh that’s right!

 

[Faith]

Oh that’s right!

Yes. I belong to an LCMS church. And I also noted to you I was a voting delegate to the Tampa Convention.


.

Josiah, I’m going through some more religious worrying (scrupulosity) wondering about the LCMS convention and their decision to continue teaching against evolution. Just one quick question: can I trust that the convention weighed all the information and theories on evolution that’s out there and made their decision to go against evolution based on what they know is truth?
IOW they did weigh all the information and theories out there before making their decision to go against evolution, didn’t they?

 

[JRT]

Josiah, I’m going through some more religious worrying (scrupulosity) wondering about the LCMS convention and their decision to continue teaching against evolution. Just one quick question: can I trust that the convention weighed all the information and theories on evolution that’s out there and made their decision to go against evolution based on what they know is truth?
IOW they did weigh all the information and theories out there before making their decision to go against evolution, didn’t they?

At this time in history it is hard to get my head around any Christian church or denomination rejecting the theory of evolution. Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

 

[Andrew]

At this time in history it is hard to get my head around any Christian church or denomination rejecting the theory of evolution. Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

Evolution is an ancient theory, early church fathers commented on it

 

[Faith]

Evolution is an ancient theory, early church fathers commented on it

Do you believe in evolution, Andrew?

 

[Faith]

At this time in history it is hard to get my head around any Christian church or denomination rejecting the theory of evolution. Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

What denomination are you JRT? Forgive me if you’ve already told me,

 

[Faith]

As the two others have said, it's merely a hypothesis and not something that all scientists claim is how it happened. Scientists are always trying to figure things out and what we've learned from history is that at times they get things right and other times they're horribly wrong.

Your faith is in God, not what men claim as to the origins of life here on our planet.

Do you believe in creationism or evolution?

 

[JRT]

What denomination are you JRT? Forgive me if you’ve already told me,

I am a progressive Christian.

 

[Faith]

Josiah, I’m going through some more religious worrying (scrupulosity) wondering about the LCMS convention and their decision to continue teaching against evolution. Just one quick question: can I trust that the convention weighed all the information and theories on evolution that’s out there and made their decision to go against evolution based on what they know is truth?
IOW they did weigh all the information and theories out there before making their decision to go against evolution, didn’t they?

Never mind; I had a talk with someone else and I’m feeling much better now.

 

[JRT]

Do you believe in creationism or evolution?

I regard the first four words in Genesis to be the most accurate in the entire book ---- "In the beginning God... "

 

[hedrick]

How can this be explained since us Christians believe that life came from God and as described in Genesis? Every time I start to feel good about my faith, some scientist comes along and ruins it.




https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/lightning-origin-of-life-1.5952917

This is actually one of the weakest way to attack literal belief in Genesis. There is no generally accepted model for how life arose. So this is an interesting idea, but certainly nothing with strong enough support that I'd want to use to prove anything.

There are, however, other well-supported models that conflict with a literal reading of Genesis, such as the big bang and astronomy in general, and evolution.