web analytics

Are we Allowed to believe in both God And Science?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by Chris Stevenson

Since I was a kid I remember debates about Evolution vs. Creation devolve into Science vs. Creationism. Throughout those long decades not once was the argument put forth into the mainstream of their debates, that God is the creator of science. Being the creator of all things it’s only natural right? Man admits to operating under the laws of physics. Who created physics?

What man has done, is taken the gift of science that God granted him and perverted it into things that was never meant for man to use. There are only a small number of faiths that have a good grip on the balance between God and science. But if most people are still debating between God and science as if the two have no relation , then humanity has a long way to go.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible show’s God’s tool that he uses to create, implement, and manipulate science is called his holy spirit or holy ghost. Atheists and others disassociate the two and cancel out the builder. Yet when you go to work everyday, your boss or workmates don’t cancel out your car or bus or whatever means you took to get there, and debate on how you’re there in the building or not.

The problem also is, man has become so full of himself that he created the theory of evolution. In many quarters this is no longer considered a theory, many think it’s a no-brainer. They’re half correct, only half-a-brain could think up evolution. Many whites have taken on what the Last Poets call a “God Complex,” in other words he will permit non-whites to worship God as long as it’s his rewritten dark-ages Christianity that directs attention to worship of him. This of course is a Bible made for colonial rule. You’ll be surprised at how many blacks don’t know this. White men can love the theory of evolution, will tolerate Atheism, but reject communism; a form of Atheism requiring him to share.

The debate between evolution and creation is nothing more than a debate between weighing what we can see here and now against whether or not to give it a reference point. It’s resolved easily really. Just take your car or watch apart and wait for the parts to evolve back together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What are these parts intended to become, and how many billions of years do we wait for them to evolve together?

Chris Stevenson is a regular columnist for blackcommentator, Political Affairs Magazine, and a syndicated columnist. Follow him on Twitter, and Facebook, you don’t have to join any of them. Watch his video commentary Policy & Prejudice and The Network for clbTV. Sign his Petition to permanently Abolish the Death Penalty @ Change.org. Respond to him on the link below.
_____________________________________________________________________

 

Be Sociable, Share!

3 Comments on "Are we Allowed to believe in both God And Science?"

  1. First ask what specialties these siecntists would be. One of the links listed in a previous answer gives such relevant specialties as Watershed Science , Agriculturist , Plant Physiologist and one 3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General Just how much involved in evolution are they?Certainly one have have a doctorate and believe in creationism. If the degree was in religion it wouldn’t be a surprise. One could even call themselves a scientist to boot.The claim that evolution is wrong because we have never tested or observe a specie evolving in to a brand new specie either ignores or is unaware of the E coli long term experiment. It’s been running since 1988 and has produced a new species. Likely this wasn’t mentions as it’s science and not something easily dismissed.There’s also the slippery definition of what creationism was accepted. One person listed converted from theistic to something else. Problem is theistic is a creation belief. There’s no one creation belief (we won’t call any of then theories) Did all these people change to literal creationism? Gap? Young earth? Old earth? or did they weasel with worlds such as day and claim Genesis can’t be taken at face value?

  2. We create dichotomies as to explain our incapacity to contain all knowledge. We are still trying to define [Infinite] God and faith and since that is hard to do we had to create an opposition to something and science, with it’s “tangible” explanations seams just the right one to use.
    I think Einstein’s theory of relativity actually made the opposition invalid. But it is a matter of how you look at things. We sacrifice a lot in the name of objectivity and science and I think we are slowly taking ourselves out of the equation.
    The fact that atoms found on the deepest parts of the universe are same with the ones within ourselves is not an argument against God’s existence.
    The fact that we know so much and learning more about the universe and the world we live in, the fact that we discover more and more the laws that allows all that is in the world to exist and function is not in spite of God but because of God who has graced us with free will and inquiring minds.

    • I don’t prefer neheitr. They all have fallacies. The evolution theory in place right now has been changing and will change with new discoveries. Its really hard to test and observed evolution in the process because we have never tested or observe a specie evolving in to a brand new specie. The only thing we have observed is adaptations of the same type of animal giving rise to capabilities it will not have in other environments. We based evolution on adaptations and we called gradual change because is super slow so our guess that through many generations and adaptation a new specie would become very different than the original specie. We have never seen a fish start walking on two legs. Time prevents this. So there are holes in all our data and evidence is always bringing up new problems and theories.As for the creation theory. No one was there in the beginning to disprove or approve it. We simply don’t know how inanimate matter came to be animated. We can theorize it and can do experiment to produce such things in a test tube, but if you think, there was a creator (scientist) for the proteins that formed in the test tube. So we dont know what outside force in nature set the motion for living organisms to arise from simple proteins.So the door really open for both debates and even more debates.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*