A Designer?

BTW, if the natural world had been designed by a maker I would say he/she had an odd sense of design.  The vast majority (some estimate in the 90% or higher range) of species that once roamed the Earth are now extinct.  Pretty inefficient designer.  And what were the dinosaurs?  A 50 million year experiment?  If the goal was to design humans the designer missed - by a lot.

Carbon Dating

Three independent labs have carbon dated the shroud to much later than the crucifixion.  BIT have attacked the results based on claims of "procedural flaws" (a common strategy).  They hold test protocols to impossible standards that can never be met.  The science appears to indicate that it is not genuine.

Comments are appreciated but may or may not be responded to.  A conversation with one BIT is enough.  I gotta make a living too ya know.

Faith and science do not, and should not, work together.  Scientific inquiry does not necessary lead to faith.  For some it does, for some it doesn't - this is true of all human experiences.  I guess we'll have to leave it at that as it is another area where we'll have to ATD (agree to disagree).

A Photo

Hi David,

Thanks for the pic. for my profile. You know me too well; I would have left it blank. Also want to apologize for sending the last post twice. I tried to edit and didn't realize it sent.

Just a quick comment on the Turin Shroud. I just watched a documentary not to long ago concerning the shroud. Thought it was really well done and seemed to show some solid evidence for its authenticity. That is the extent of my knowledge on it though.

I noticed that you have a couple questions posed to you in the comment section. Are you responding to those?

tj

Faith and Science work together

Yes, I too am excited to have this opportunity to exchange ideas and I am sure this will be good for both of us.

OK, let me start by saying-- if I don't address everything you've mentioned so far, it is not because I am ignoring an issue but only because I am trying to focus on one or two thoughts at a time. This will allow for shorter, more frequent entries.

I feel from your comments I need to clarify that I am not anti-science. The discoveries we are making concerning the physical and the natural are exciting and incredible. I just believe that faith and science should work together. Science is limited to man's capability at the time and has had to correct ideas and theories throughout history as more and more evidence presents itself. As our understanding of our world grows this should only increase our desire to know and love its Maker. God has never contradicted science... Science contradicts God when scientist try to fill in philosophical questions about how we were created without turning to God. This is where yours and my faith differs. To put your faith in science alone and believe "the cosmos is all there is and ever will be" (to quote Carl Sagan), is a pretty big leap. Science does not have all the answers, its focus is in the realm of particulars; particulars have no meaning apart from the pattern of the universal plan. It's not a "god of the gaps" error (as you mentioned) when you turn to God for the answers. God is the glue that binds all the pieces of the puzzle together. He is behind everything. The error comes in when you leave God out! Here are a few quotes from famous scientist to show this error-----

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Richard Dawkins

"Biologist must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
Francis Clark

"Most modern biologist, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the orgin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this talk to concede spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are."
George Wald

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the orgin of live appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
Francis Clark (Nobel Prize winner)

These scientist seem to refuse to follow the Truth no matter where it may lead.

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Psalm 53

Believer in the Truth

A Turin Shroud

I am curious what you think of this – do you think it held Jesus?  Is it an object to revere as Catholics do?  Is it an object to pray over as the Pope does?

David

Friends

I am glad we are having this exchange, even if we never agree, it will deepen our friendship.

Eternal Destination

It strikes me as odd that we use the same words (proof, evidence, reason) but these words have completely different meanings to us. We both want proof but I don’t think you need proof to believe as you do. It is absurd to require proof for what to me is unprovable. Schroedinger was exactly right – science IS silent regarding a creator – and that is precisely because the scientific model cannot possibly prove the existence of a god. (Some find this silence uncomfortable - many do not.) This silence does not indicate that science is lacking. Francis Collins is right – science and religion do not overlap so they are in effect silent about each other. The great mistake for centuries was that religion intruded into the world of science. I really thought we left that behind in the dark ages but I guess not.

Eternal destination – another very odd concept. But a very logical part of any belief system. If you are going to require strict adherence to a system of beliefs, give up “sinful” acts, there has to be a reward – and a dire threat if you don’t adhere. I have zero interest in eternal life. This life is plenty for me and in fact I only want to focus on making this life the best it can be. I can do this by being the best father, husband, brother, and friend – one doesn’t need to believe in a god to be a good person. Frankly I couldn’t care less about eternal life and since I don’t believe, hell doesn’t exist. (Although I’ve had a couple clients who have made me wonder……)

Hell – a strange idea indeed given the state of today’s world. There are women in Condo who are living in the worst hell right now. Raped a dozen times a day and then tortured after that. These women are already in hell. And not for any “sins” they committed – they just had the misfortune to be born in the wrong place.  How do you tell a person who is treated so that they must believe as you do or you will go to hell?  They don't need a savior - they need a gun - a big gun.

I really take exception to this statement in your last post: “the next step is faith (this is true for science too)”. This is not true of science. When a scientist leaps to faith simply because they cannot understand a phenomena of nature they have made the “god of the gaps” error.  (When there is a gap in knowledge insert the supernatural to bridge the gap.)  Indeed, if all scientists did this we would still be bleeding sick people to cure disease and epileptics would still be viewed as possessed by demons.  Issac Newton even made the “god of the gaps” mistake in Principia Mathematica. He claimed all the mysteries of nature were now understood – except for the motion of the planets. This could not be explained so it was clearly the “handiwork of God”. Even undergrad physics majors in college understand the principals of orbital mechanics – no supernatural explanation is required.