JLT
Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008
|
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2010,16:11) | Quote | Be able to summarize the main scientific challenges to the Christian faith. |
That's backwards. Science does not challenge Christian faith-based beliefs. With regard to the major faith-based belief of Christianity (the divinity of Jesus Christ), science is silent. Silence is not a challenge.
When Christians choose to ignore Augustine's advice about using Scripture to tell non-Christians how the world works, they are challenging science. And that's where they have lost, are losing, and will continue to lose. If you make a claim about the natural world around us, you are entering the realm of science, not faith.
It's possible that by providing an alternative to superstition and woo, science is seen as a "challenge" to Christianity. But that is not specific to Christianity; rational alternatives to superstition are a threat to all religions. |
Dembski could mean something like "No Adam & Eve, no Fall --> Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary." For a Dembski-type Christian that's a challenging thought. AFAIK, his latest book is some far-fetched explanation of how the fall worked both forward and backward in time, thereby explaining why there was death before the first humans even existed (or some such). But in that case, it's more reality that's challenging to your faith than science. Death is an integral part of life. Even if I accepted that Adam & Eve actually existed. What if they hadn't eaten from the tree and no human or animal (plants apparently don't count as living) had ever died? We'd be buried under a thick cover of insects, for starters....
-------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner
|