The sociologist who busted myths last year with her study finding that the majority of scientists are religious, not God-denying atheists, is at it again.
Elaine Howard Ecklund, director of Rice University’s Religion and Public Life Program, said 70 percent of self-identified evangelicals “do not view religion and science as being in conflict.”
Now, the myth that bites the data dust, may be the one that proclaims evangelicals are a monolithic group opposed to the scientific view of human evolution.
Last year, at an AAAS’s Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion, Ecklund presented the first wave of data that examined the beliefs of self-identified scientists. It was drawn from a survey of 10,000 U.S. adults that claims to be the largest study of American views on these issues.
The headline then was that 76 percent of scientists in the general population identify with a religious tradition.
This year, the news from the second wave of data in the study was the high degree of science acceptance among evangelicals. The study found:
Overall, 85 percent of Americans and 84 percent of evangelicals say modern science is doing good in the world. The greatest areas of accord were on the pragmatic side of science such as technology and medical discoveries that can alleviate suffering.
However, Ecklund also noted a finding that may make the evidence-based science world uneasy: 60 percent of evangelicals said scientists “should be open to considering miracles in their theories.”
(FROM RNS)
Bryan Patterson's Faithworks 
The reason why religion and science are seen to be incompatible is the theory of evolution. Bring the theory of evolution into the equation, and evolutionists immediately label anyone who dares talk about Creation, intelligent design, etc as unscientific.
In his debate with Bill Nye, Ken Ham pointed out that where forensic science (what is supposed to have happened in the past) is concerned, religion is perceived to be in conflict with science. When science is concerned with operational science (how/why things work) there is absolutely no conflict between religion and science.
In fact Bill Nye constantly harped on, that Christian beliefs would eventually lead to no science being taught in schools etc.
LikeLike
“label anyone who dares talk about Creation, intelligent design, etc as unscientific”
Fair enough seems a great label for somebody promoting unscientific ideas.
LikeLike
Davinci old mate, I take the opportunity to make a final comment to you here on our old debate. You really do need to do some serious indepth reading about the early history of the Christian Church.
You commence that pathetic posting with these words. “I have read your third and final piece of evidence for your contention and I HAVE REJECTED IT AS PURE GARBAGE.”
Let me tell you about some historical FACTS. In the early to middle decades of the second century, (in other words between 110 and 150 to spell it out) there were only two properly documented cases of individual named Christians engaged in propaganda and getting martyred under Rome. They are Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, and Justin a writer of important appeals to the Roman authorities in apologetics. These are specifically listed as the first two great names of the (post-Apostolic) Church Fathers. Also through much of the second century, a document entitled The Epistle of Barnabas was very widely read throughout the Christian Church. These matters are FACTS, my friend; and just cant be dismissed as Garbage.
Ignatius insisted that Christians should NEVER engage in ANY Jewish practice; and he specifically emphasized that ‘continuing in such practices as observing the Jewish Sabbath’ revealed a failure to have ‘received the gift of Grace’. Interestingly enough, he made no attempt to describe the ‘Lord’s day’ as being just the transference of the Jewish Sabbath day. He stated “to profess Jesus Christ while continuing to follow such Jewish customs is an absurdity.”
This kind of approach is to be found in the words of Justin. I remind you that he stated that Circumcision was incumbent upon the Jews for the sole purpose of ready identification, so that they might be more easily persecuted. He insisted that there never was any sort of Covenant that God maintained with the Jews. The OT was not a Jewish book, but rather a Christian one, and every single rule that God told to Moses was to be read and interpreted allegorically, including the dietary rules and all. Again NO SABBATH OBSERVANCE.
All of these same ideas and teachings of anti-Jewish sentiment were emphasized with great vindictiveness and power by the author or the very influential Epistle of Barnabas. As I pointed out before, this brief book was so highly thought of that it only escaped being included in the Christian Testament by a whisker. As it was it was included in the Codex Sinaiaticus, the earliest complete Canon that we have after the Council of Nicaea.
If you recall, my thesis/contention (that you dismissed as garbage) is that a process of demonization of the Jews just galloped from the time of Paul through into the 2nd century. And if you look at others of the great Church Fathers from Tertullian, to Augustine and John Chrysostom, you will find identical and horrible venom being spewed out at the Jews. DO SOME SERIOUS READING AND STUDY SOMETIME, davinci, and get to know about the early Church.
Now IF by some chance you are going to say something to the effect that from early in the 2nd century, the Church turned its back on the truth (as it transmogrified into the Catholic tradition) then in that case you have to agree with me that the Jews WERE actually demonized when I said they were. Also, you need to give away any complaint about what I have written regarding the Martyrs under Rome through the 2nd/3rd centuries.
And you do recall how I’ve stated that historical research has actually uncovered no more than just a very few thousand martyrs over that period. Not the lies about hundreds of thousands claimed by that corrupted and perverted later church. So davinci, – Garbage???? I still freely offer $100 to any charity if you can prove numbers over – say 12,000 in those times, of real martyrs. The figures I’ve read suggest actually no more than 3000 to 6000 at most.
I’d recommend too, that Bryan considers the issue as well. Despite our good Moderator’s contemptuous statement that he will get HIS information on such matters from ‘Real Scholars’ (thank you), neither he or anyone else on this blog has come up with testimony from such real scholars to refute my statements there. [It’s real scholars I’ve been reading Bryan.].
Cheers Rian.
LikeLike
It’s real scholars I’ve been reading Bryan.
And again, just your opinion 🙂
LikeLike
That’s right Bryan,
You just cant quote the names of any of these real scholars that you choose to read as alternatives, can you? And neither has anyone else here. If my contention about the Martyrdoms is wrong, then for heavens sake, someone give me the evidence and the authorities. I at least am completely prepared to admit if I’m proven wrong.
Interesting too that you pick out just one item out of all my posting here. Apparently you just are unable to answer any of the rest of it, any more than will davinci be. Was what I quoted there an example of poor scholarship? Hm?
What an easy way of wriggling out of it, to tell me that it’s ‘just my opinion.’ You need to do better than that.
Rian
LikeLike
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/how_about_we_stop_screwing_marriage/
there Bryan, homophobe Miranda Devine is at it again slandering loving gay couples
cut, cut, cut.
Ps Bryan, when Gay Marriage is celebrated in your nation, do you wish to call it the Holy Union or Holy institution of marriage. Is it still holy to you? Or never was? or is marriage just a secular contract all humanity enjoys the lasting social benefits of? Like car rental – a contract that benefits both parties and protects the upholstery? You don’t get it and never will I suspect. When did Jesus do away with the law? can you put a date on that? What was that Sinai law for – what did it do? 3,2,1, ad hominem
LikeLike
PhillpGeorge,
Uganda sounds like it just might be the place for you. Your own little anti-gay utopia awaits. Let us know if you need help packing.
LikeLike
“Ps Bryan, when Gay Marriage is celebrated in your nation, do you wish to call it the Holy Union or Holy institution of marriage. Is it still holy to you?”
Exactly, Phillip G.
That pierced my heart. Why? Because I haven’t treated my marriage as holy. Are there other Christians as flawed as I am? Bound to be, unfortunately.
Jesus said: “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church. Husbands and wives, love each other as I have loved you. I ordained marriage and blessed it with My Word. Keep the marriage bed holy. Cleanse yourself from all unrighteousness and be pure, even as I am pure.”
Now, what am I trying to say? Well, I agree with you. I believe that anyone who thinks God blesses same-sex marriage does not know the God of the Bible. But then again, I could be wrong and maybe they do know Him and I don’t. But, what I do know is that no amount of legislation or marriages performed by priests/pastors in churches/places of worship, uttering prayers for sanctification and giving their seal of approval by calling the marriage a ‘holy union’, can ever ensure that the couple will treat their marriage as such. Only God can sanctify us, and only God knows the real condition of our hearts/thoughts towards our spouses, so I think that counting other people’s sins does not make us saints.
LikeLike
I agree that marriage is holy in believers’ hearts Mon.
But I find Dabbles and PG’s sneering and hateful homophobia anything but holy.
LikeLike
Scientists do consider miracles – they discover how seemingly miraculous things actually function naturally!
Otherwise, they would certainly be interested in studying miracles should evidence of said miracles be presented and allowed for testing.
LikeLike
Question: How do you study miracles that are a once off events (such as the ten plagues of Egypt)?
Question: How do you study miracles that are so unexpected that scientists haven’t even thought of what controls/premises/basis need to be in place so that they might be able determine whether the event was a miracle or not?
Question: How do you study miracles, when it is not politically correct or viable to publish the miracle to the whole world. The Bible records at least one of this type of miracle (ie blind man that was ostracised upon admitting who healed him).
Question: How do you study potential miracles when candidates secretly continue to do things that would defeat the purpose of the miracle in the first place. I once heard an atheist ask why God would not heal a particular person from diabetes. Unbeknown to the atheist, the said person was eating junk food and the only exercise he did was lifting a can of “Mother” from his desk to his mouth! And that person was seen as a candidate for a miracle!
LikeLike
Q1. You can’t necessarily study all miracles easily, but how about we start with one? Miraculous healings would likely be good candidates for study. You’d think God would want to reveal Himself through such events if He actually cared about us.
Q2. Any examples? Unexpected events can still be investigated. Again, how about we start first with a ‘miracle’ that can be studied more reasonably?
Q3. What does political correctness have to do with it? I’ve seen plenty of miraculous things shown on the news, even likely fraudulent miracles have been broadcast. The media doesn’t always care about legitimacy of events.
Q4. Not sure what non-miracles have to do with miracles.
I have seen a documentary following the ‘miracles’ of the big-name faith healers. As it turns out, the adrenaline of the situation can help people temporarily rise beyond their regular limitations, but beyond the event, no healing actually takes place. There is always the placebo effect which affects religious and non-religious alike.
LikeLike
Q3. What does political correctness have to do with it? I’ve seen plenty of miraculous things shown on the news, even likely fraudulent miracles have been broadcast. The media doesn’t always care about legitimacy of events.
Jasonshaw, politics often are a hindrance to studying miracles.
The Biblical example I had mentioned, is recorded in John 9:1-9. It is the story of a blind man that was cured, only to face the prospects of excommunication if word got out that this miracle testified to Jesus being what He claimed to be. With fear of excommunication, who would bother studying miracles if such study would lead to conclusions that are not politically correct?
The second miracle that I wish to point out to you is that there is a rabbinical curse on people bothering to compute the Messiah’s appearance. The book of Daniel in the Old Testament predicted the year in which the Messiah would appear among His people, and was one of the prophetic markers that identified Jesus as the Messiah. But because this was not politically favourable to the Rabbis a curse was placed on anyone bothering to compute the Messiah’s appearance. With such a curse, I ask you, who would bother investigating this miracle?
LikeLike
In his book The Plagues of Egypt: Archaeology, History, and Science Look at the Bible, Siro Igino Trevisanato explores the theory that the plagues were initially caused by the Santorini eruption in Greece. His hypothesis considers a two-stage eruption over a time of a bit less than two years. His studies place the first eruption in 1602 BC, when volcanic ash taints the Nile, causing the first plague and forming a catalyst for many of the subsequent plagues. In 1600 BC, the plume of a Santorini eruption caused the ninth plague, the days of darkness. Trevisanato hypothesizes that the Egyptians (at that time under the occupation of Hyksos), resorted to human sacrifice in an attempt to appease the gods, for they had viewed the ninth plague as a precursor to more. This human sacrifice became known as the tenth plague.[39]
In an article published in 1996, physician-epidemiologist John S. Marr and co-author Curt Malloy integrated biblical, historical and Egyptological sources with modern scientific conjectures in a comprehensive review of natural explanations for the ten plagues, postulating their own specific explanations for the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and tenth plagues. Their explanation also accounted for the apparent selectiveness of the plagues, as implied in the Bible. The paper served as the basis for a website and documentary aired on the Learning Channel from 1998 to 2005.[40] The original article is now available in an updated and illustrated form in Apple’s iBookstore through plague scapes.[41]
LikeLiked by 1 person
No doubt the efficacy of ‘spinning’ was known to the earliest ‘fishers of men’; you know, the ones who introduced the christian fish symbol in use even today. Use the right spin and you’re sure to catch a few.
1…… “Elaine Howard Ecklund, director of Rice University’s Religion and Public Life Program, said 70 percent of self-identified evangelicals “do not view religion and science as being in conflict.”
(a)… She’s a ‘socioligist’ and works for a biased religious organisation. To quote that other whore of yore:- “She WOULD say that, wouldn’t she?’.
(b)…More likely the surveyed ‘scientists’ (leaving out such ring-ins as ‘social scientists’, political scientists’ and Martha Stewart fans) agreed that there was no conflict between science and religion because ~ there being NO basis for comparing them ~ there was no basis for conflict ~ no ground on which a ‘conflict’ could be fought out.
2……. “Now, the myth that bites the data dust, may be the one that proclaims evangelicals are a monolithic group opposed to the scientific view of human evolution.”
Ever since Cain and Abel (never mind the Tower of Babel, the genocide of the Canaanites and the IRA) anyone who proclaims a “myth….of a monolithic religious group” is the sort of ding-a-ling who casts his spinner into the bathtub in pursuit of the Loch Ness Monster.
Even Adam and Eve were at odds over god: what he said, meant or would/wouldn’t do.
3……”Self-identified scientists” ??? No doubt including ‘christian scientisits’ , ‘social scientists’ and Michael Behe’s gang of totally-discredited ‘ID’ so-called ‘scientists’.
4….. “The headline then was that 76 percent of scientists in the general population identify with a religious tradition.”
No doubt an even greater “percentage of scientists” identify with being car-drivers, TV-watchers, breakfast eaters, Simpsons fans, medication-consumers, dunny-paper-users and Collingwood supporters. We won’t even mention the percentage who identify with being wife-beaters, child-molesters and alcholics, voters, etc.
5…… DOH!… “This year, the news from the second wave of data in the study was the high degree of science acceptance among evangelicals.”
One might hazard the guess that 95% of “evangelicals” use dunny-paper.(he rest presumably still use their left hand as biblically mandated!) Y’can’t NOT accept science if you use the products produced by science.
6…….Overall, 85 percent of Americans and 84 percent of evangelicals say modern science is doing good in the world.
Doh!…. “By their fruits shall you know them” …Matt.16-20
And the fruits of ‘religion’ of all ideologies are: Murder, mayhem and misery.
7…… What “uneasy”:- “However, Ecklund also noted a finding that may make the evidence-based science world uneasy: 60 percent of evangelicals said scientists “should be open to considering miracles in their theories.”
Why would an “evidence-based science world” give any more consdieration to what “60% of evangelicals said” than a dog would give to the odd(sic!) flea-forum.
In a world without ‘science’ ~ religious dicta notwithstanding ~ we’d all still be swinging around in the tree-tops by our tails.
LikeLike
Actually science developed in the West in a religious environment.
Michael Faraday was an elder in his local church as well as a scientist.
Sir Isaac Newton wrote much more treatises on the books of Daniel and Revelation than he did on scientific and mathematical arts.
And the list goes on.
LikeLike
davinci, I think the sucker punch is that most of what people call science is a conflation of philosophical materialism with other stuff they can’t get their vocabulary around. From Carl Sagan to Isaac Asimov to ‘Theory of Everything’ Stephen Hawking types, epistemology is simply beyond their metaphorical pay grade. Somehow highly educated fools are that much more ‘pathetic’. People can no more explain that word ‘science’ than they can locate consciousness. “Peer reviewed” and hand waving hides appeal to authority vacuous rhetoric; “the end’ of all things is troubled yet interesting times.
I suspect there’s very little time now.
LikeLike
Rot! Scientific methodology was developed independently of ‘religion’, harking all the way back to the wheel, the use of fire, agriculture and so on.
Apart from a few individual ‘mavericks’ wherever ‘religion’ interfered ‘science’ was either denigrated or outlawed ~ on pain of being burnt alive. It wasn’t ‘science’ that produced the Dark Ages or the Inquisitions.
‘Science’ as we know it blossomed and thrived in ‘The Age of Reason’, DESPITE the efforts of religion to suppress it, but because such repressions failed. And these days explorers in science no longer even have to pay lip-service religion.
So “Michael Faraday was an elder in his local church as well as a scientist.”.
So what? No doubt he was also ~ with equal relevance ~ a wearer of trousers.
A certainly Newton wrote a great deal on biblical matters ~ and so do I! ~ and some of his thinking may have been influenced by the religious ‘environment’ of his time.
But he was nonetheless a non-believer of christianity ~ particularly that fundamental christian belief :- the divinity of Jesus. Likewise the likes of John Locke, Francis Bacon etal, all the way through to Einstein, Hawkins and Dawkins.
There’s endless evidence ( and philosophy) to the effect that after men began to investigate things they observed (via a ‘scientific methodology’) they invented god to explain what their ‘scientific’ ignorance wasn’t yet able to explain. ie. The ‘god of the gaps’.
We’ve come a long way since then; Galileo Galilei proved (scientifically) once and for all that the stars weren’t holes in the sky through which the light of heaven shined.
Human knowledge hasn’t looked back.
LikeLike
Back to the Front, Flippydip?
Though ” what people call science” may better be described as ‘scientific methodology’, it yet describes ‘the rational investigations of things observed or indicated as being observable by what has already been explained’.
As for locating the ‘conscious’ by use of the already-explained ‘science’ I can assert without fear of contradiction that ‘consciousness’ abides in the head.
The simple application of “conflation of philosophical materialism” in the form of a guillotine (and gravity) will amply demonstrate the accuracy of that assertion to even the most babbling nitwit.
LikeLike
ps.. Your ‘humanly-superior’ (would that be whimsically described as ‘homosap-ist’?) vantage-point as it applies to homosaps —–>>
“I suspect there’s very little time now.“the end’ of all things is troubled yet interesting times……I suspect there’s very little time now.” may well be accurate, as it applies to homosaps.
But the rest of ‘creation’ will continue to hum along without a hiccup…..according to ‘scientific’ discovery.
In fact, elements of that ‘creation’ will most likely breathe a sigh of relief.
…or a cheer of ecstasy!
They may even invent a god (in their own image of course!) in order to provide a focal-point to which to address their gratitude.
….or, unlike us, they may be intelligent enough to refrain from doing so.
LikeLike
LikeLike
…..and then there’s the religion called ‘political science’:-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/clarkeanddawe/
LikeLike
Speaking of “miracles”
LikeLike
That’s wonderful
LikeLike
If you’re ever having a rough day it’s a great thing to watch. And there’s few more out there.
LikeLike
Another person’s view.
“DO ALL QUESTIONS HAVE ANSWERS? How much can we know about the world? Is there such a thing as an ultimate truth? To be human is to want to know, but what we are able to observe is only a tiny portion of what’s “out there.” In The Island of Knowledge, Dartmouth College astronomer and physicist Dr. Marcelo Gleiser traces our search for answers to the most fundamental questions of existence. In so doing, he reaches a provocative conclusion: science, the main tool we use to find answers, is fundamentally limited. These limits to our knowledge arise both from our tools of exploration and from the nature of physical reality: the speed of light, the uncertainty principle, the impossibility of seeing beyond the cosmic horizon, the incompleteness theorem, and our own limitations as an intelligent species. Recognizing limits in this way, Gleiser argues, is not a deterrent to progress or a surrendering to religion. Rather, it frees us to question the meaning and nature of the universe while affirming the central role of life and ourselves in it. Science can and must go on, but recognizing its limits reveals its true mission: to know the universe is to know ourselves. ”
http://www.skeptic.com/past-lectures/island-of-knowledge/
LikeLike