Do Christians hold Science to a higher standard?

[Cmass]

I have read Christians in many forums requesting "more evidence" of some basic scientific theories. They often use any area where there is a gap in evidence as proof that the Bible myths are true.
Is there a double standard here? Do Christians inadvertently hold science to a higher standard than their own Bible? Do they question the Bible with the same voracity? Or would doing so result in conclusions that were not in keeping with the myth?
Have fun!
- Chris

[Goat]

I have read Christians in many forums requesting "more evidence" of some basic scientific theories. They often use any area where there is a gap in evidence as proof that the Bible myths are true.
Is there a double standard here? Do Christians inadvertently hold science to a higher standard than their own Bible? Do they question the Bible with the same voracity? Or would doing so result in conclusions that were not in keeping with the myth?
Have fun!
- Chris

It depends on the Christian, but the less Christians know about science the 'more evidence' they demand. They can not properly interpret the evidence that is provided, particularly if the conclusion violates their religious beliefs.

[Dude]

I think that if someone truly believes in their religion, then they ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with it. If you are brainwashed your whole life to believe something, no evidence will change your mind if you don't want it to. Ignorance is bliss.

[Confused]

Where have you been Cmass? I so seldom see you on anymore and miss you OP. They always challenge me though remain lighthearted in many cases.

OK, to OP.

From what I can see, there are many Christians on this site that hold to the truth that the bible isn't inerrant nor is it self consistent. So they question many things about the bible. Though I say this, I don't see many trying to reconcile the issues. Usually I see non-theists starting threads to address it and then theists reacting (though no all theist fall into this category, Micatala is a perfect example of one who intiates threads that attempt to address the issues in a very non-attacking form).

On the other side of the spectrum, I do see many theists readily pointing out gaps in science while ignoring gaps in religion, but this works the same way. Many atheists readily point out gaps in religion while ignoring gaps in science.

[Cmass]

Where have you been Cmass? I so seldom see you on anymore and miss you OP. They always challenge me though remain lighthearted in many cases.

Howdy! I have been (and still am) in the middle of a very intense project. I am responsible for design and manufacturing of a new retail product....

Many atheists readily point out gaps in religion while ignoring gaps in science.

This may be true....but do you have any evidence of it in this forum?
The major difference with those who use science for explanations of nature and those who use religion is that science is a PROCESS for evaluation and is self-correcting. Religion is not a process, it is a static explanation based upon stories. It is not self-correcting because it assumes that whoever wrote the story got it perfectly right.

[Confused]

Where have you been Cmass? I so seldom see you on anymore and miss you OP. They always challenge me though remain lighthearted in many cases.

Howdy! I have been (and still am) in the middle of a very intense project. I am responsible for design and manufacturing of a new retail product....

Many atheists readily point out gaps in religion while ignoring gaps in science.

This may be true....but do you have any evidence of it in this forum?
The major difference with those who use science for explanations of nature and those who use religion is that science is a PROCESS for evaluation and is self-correcting. Religion is not a process, it is a static explanation based upon stories. It is not self-correcting because it assumes that whoever wrote the story got it perfectly right.

Yes, this is true, but how many atheists on this forum attempt to address the fact that science cannot explain how life began? We can use evololution etc. once the inital foundation of life is established, but we ignore the fact that science can't tell us where the foundation came from. Yes, science is a form of self-correcting and evaluating process. But what science can't explain, it doesn't attempt to explain. It ignores it. Don't get me wrong. I don't think science is wrong in not attempting to explain it. Currently, it isn't an area science cat address. But we still ignore this gap from the earth being created to life becoming present: all forms of life, plants, animals, insects, etc....Life isn't formed from non-life. This is one example. Weather is another. We can't even predict with a good degree of accuracy what the weather will be 2 days from now, whether or not a funnel cloud will become a tornado, if a tropical wave will become a hurricane, earthquakes, etc.... Medicine: I can't tell you how many time I have had a patient in the ICU who was septic, in their 90's, had a bad heart and kidneys already, and by all rights should have died: yet they lived and went home independently by contrast I have had 30 year olds, septic but with healthy heart, lungs, etc.... all the same septic shock events as the 90 year old: but they died. Why? Science can't answer it. We don't even try to answer it. It could have been some natural reason we didn't contemplate, but it could have been a supernatural miracle as well. Gaps. Yes, logic says the natural is almost always the better explanation, but without empirical data to prove the natural, we assume the natural by means of natural gaps. Same concept, different logic.

[Goat]

Where have you been Cmass? I so seldom see you on anymore and miss you OP. They always challenge me though remain lighthearted in many cases.

Howdy! I have been (and still am) in the middle of a very intense project. I am responsible for design and manufacturing of a new retail product....

Many atheists readily point out gaps in religion while ignoring gaps in science.

This may be true....but do you have any evidence of it in this forum?
The major difference with those who use science for explanations of nature and those who use religion is that science is a PROCESS for evaluation and is self-correcting. Religion is not a process, it is a static explanation based upon stories. It is not self-correcting because it assumes that whoever wrote the story got it perfectly right.

Yes, this is true, but how many atheists on this forum attempt to address the fact that science cannot explain how life began? We can use evololution etc. once the inital foundation of life is established, but we ignore the fact that science can't tell us where the foundation came from. Yes, science is a form of self-correcting and evaluating process. But what science can't explain, it doesn't attempt to explain. It ignores it. Don't get me wrong. I don't think science is wrong in not attempting to explain it. Currently, it isn't an area science cat address. But we still ignore this gap from the earth being created to life becoming present: all forms of life, plants, animals, insects, etc....Life isn't formed from non-life. This is one example. Weather is another. We can't even predict with a good degree of accuracy what the weather will be 2 days from now, whether or not a funnel cloud will become a tornado, if a tropical wave will become a hurricane, earthquakes, etc.... Medicine: I can't tell you how many time I have had a patient in the ICU who was septic, in their 90's, had a bad heart and kidneys already, and by all rights should have died: yet they lived and went home independently by contrast I have had 30 year olds, septic but with healthy heart, lungs, etc.... all the same septic shock events as the 90 year old: but they died. Why? Science can't answer it. We don't even try to answer it. It could have been some natural reason we didn't contemplate, but it could have been a supernatural miracle as well. Gaps. Yes, logic says the natural is almost always the better explanation, but without empirical data to prove the natural, we assume the natural by means of natural gaps. Same concept, different logic.

You are making one error here. Although evolution does not address how life began, I would say you are quite incorrect that this problem of abiogensis is not
being addressed.

[Confused]

Where have you been Cmass? I so seldom see you on anymore and miss you OP. They always challenge me though remain lighthearted in many cases.

Howdy! I have been (and still am) in the middle of a very intense project. I am responsible for design and manufacturing of a new retail product....

Many atheists readily point out gaps in religion while ignoring gaps in science.

This may be true....but do you have any evidence of it in this forum?
The major difference with those who use science for explanations of nature and those who use religion is that science is a PROCESS for evaluation and is self-correcting. Religion is not a process, it is a static explanation based upon stories. It is not self-correcting because it assumes that whoever wrote the story got it perfectly right.

Yes, this is true, but how many atheists on this forum attempt to address the fact that science cannot explain how life began? We can use evololution etc. once the inital foundation of life is established, but we ignore the fact that science can't tell us where the foundation came from. Yes, science is a form of self-correcting and evaluating process. But what science can't explain, it doesn't attempt to explain. It ignores it. Don't get me wrong. I don't think science is wrong in not attempting to explain it. Currently, it isn't an area science cat address. But we still ignore this gap from the earth being created to life becoming present: all forms of life, plants, animals, insects, etc....Life isn't formed from non-life. This is one example. Weather is another. We can't even predict with a good degree of accuracy what the weather will be 2 days from now, whether or not a funnel cloud will become a tornado, if a tropical wave will become a hurricane, earthquakes, etc.... Medicine: I can't tell you how many time I have had a patient in the ICU who was septic, in their 90's, had a bad heart and kidneys already, and by all rights should have died: yet they lived and went home independently by contrast I have had 30 year olds, septic but with healthy heart, lungs, etc.... all the same septic shock events as the 90 year old: but they died. Why? Science can't answer it. We don't even try to answer it. It could have been some natural reason we didn't contemplate, but it could have been a supernatural miracle as well. Gaps. Yes, logic says the natural is almost always the better explanation, but without empirical data to prove the natural, we assume the natural by means of natural gaps. Same concept, different logic.

You are making one error here. Although evolution does not address how life began, I would say you are quite incorrect that this problem of abiogensis is not
being addressed.

True, but it still has many skeptics even in the science community.

[QED]

You are making one error here. Although evolution does not address how life began, I would say you are quite incorrect that this problem of abiogensis is not
being addressed.

True, but it still has many skeptics even in the science community.

I don't think this is quite the way to put it. Sure there's little in the way of evidence to promote any specific hypothesis, but there does exist a guiding principle that is highly amenable to logic. I notice that many people steer clear of talking in terms of natural selection in anything other than its on-going role in evolution. However, as a general principle for self-organisation, it provides a well-understood mechanism that would need no encouragement to "get busy" on the abundant stock of molecules present on the early Earth.

Now other theories have been proposed which put natural selection to work a little further down the line (placing it where biologists seem most comfortable with it i.e. as an on-going part of evolution) In my view this is an unimportant distinction. It may be described as a form of faith that life is an entirely self-organising system, but it's faith in a known principle rather than in some supernatural tale which bases itself upon wholly unknown principles.

[Goat]

You are making one error here. Although evolution does not address how life began, I would say you are quite incorrect that this problem of abiogensis is not
being addressed.

True, but it still has many skeptics even in the science community.

I don't think this is quite the way to put it. Sure there's little in the way of evidence to promote any specific hypothesis, but there does exist a guiding principle that is highly amenable to logic. I notice that many people steer clear of talking in terms of natural selection in anything other than its on-going role in evolution. However, as a general principle for self-organisation, it provides a well-understood mechanism that would need no encouragement to "get busy" on the abundant stock of molecules present on the early Earth.

Now other theories have been proposed which put natural selection to work a little further down the line (placing it where biologists seem most comfortable with it i.e. as an on-going part of evolution) In my view this is an unimportant distinction. It may be described as a form of faith that life is an entirely self-organising system, but it's faith in a known principle rather than in some supernatural tale which bases itself upon wholly unknown principles.

When it comes to biology and chemical reactions that include self replicating molecules, it's all chemistry.