Can Science Ignore The Assumptions Within Genesis?

The bible never sets out to prove there is a God. It assumes that God exists and never questions that assumption. Can science ignore the assumptions within Genesis?

Scientists both ignore and embrace assumption as they see fit, both for larger grants and personal glory

Ignore what puts their pet projects in jeopardy, ignore what may cause them to lose grant monies and embrace what guarantees them fame

It's not science that is questionable, it's those who undertake it
Just like it's not Christianity that's questionable, it's the christian

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Scientists both ignore and embrace assumption as they see fit, both for larger grants and personal glory

Ignore what puts their pet projects in jeopardy, ignore what may cause them to lose grant monies and embrace what guarantees them fame

It's not science that is questionable, it's those who undertake it
Just like it's not Christianity that's questionable, it's the christian

I see what your saying, interesting. Here is a thought, Genesis shouldn't have happened, because the bible assumes that Lucifer exits and never questions that assumption?

a reply to: newnature1

And that's a fine assumption, there is no reason to accept that you are wrong or the bible is right
It's a choice for the individual to make

Scientists make decisions based on the opportunity those decisions offer them

a reply to: newnature1

Not a very thought provoking OP, as I assumed it would be.

But, Genesis is not even attempting to be a historical record of the creation of the Universe. Even among the most strict literalist theologian it is not believed to be literal.

But how are you going to address the concerns of the religious existential yearning to know person's questions about creation without a creation myth?

Obviously there is no way to explain the origins of the Universe. Science can't do it either.

But I think Genesis is better than the ridiculous big bang theory. At least it doesn't pretend to be factual.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: newnature1

And that's a fine assumption, there is no reason to accept that you are wrong or the bible is right
It's a choice for the individual to make

Scientists make decisions based on the opportunity those decisions offer them

Ahhh...more ignorant science bashing by people all too happy to benefit from millions of scientists hard word. I must be on ATS.

originally posted by: newnature1
The bible never sets out to prove there is a God. It assumes that God exists and never questions that assumption. Can science ignore the assumptions within Genesis?

Um, yes?

Science doesn't assume anything, it observes and reports verifiable facts.

Science would look at the evidence. Evidence is lacking.... it very well to assume something, but science then has to prove it to get acceptance from the scientific community.

My belief is that they wouldn’t assume it because there is very little evidence that there is a god.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: newnature1

And that's a fine assumption, there is no reason to accept that you are wrong or the bible is right
It's a choice for the individual to make

Scientists make decisions based on the opportunity those decisions offer them

In Genesis 1:1, the bible assumes that Lucifer flooded the earth and never questions the assumption. So it’s true, it’s not science that is questionable, because science would want a person to take another look at the assumption.

a reply to: newnature1

Science and the bible have nothing to do with each other...

originally posted by: newnature1
The bible never sets out to prove there is a God. It assumes that God exists and never questions that assumption. Can science ignore the assumptions within Genesis?

It can, it does and it ought to.

Why?

There's nothing to be gained from the narrative of Genesis. Not for science, plenty there for comparative mythology, social dynamics and cultural psychology; even literary analysis.

If you spend a little time looking at the religious cosmologies, origin myths and creation myths, you'll see a few similarities and a lot of differences. They came about through human imagination and experience seeking to explain the world around, and above, them. You'll probably enjoy reading them as much as I have because it's as close to speaking to our ancestors as we can get.

Genesis has some beautiful passages, really evocative, but what can science do with any of them?

originally posted by: newnature1

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: newnature1

And that's a fine assumption, there is no reason to accept that you are wrong or the bible is right
It's a choice for the individual to make

Scientists make decisions based on the opportunity those decisions offer them

In Genesis 1:1, the bible assumes that Lucifer flooded the earth and never questions the assumption. So it’s true, it’s not science that is questionable, because science would want a person to take another look at the assumption.

The Bible doesn't assume Lucifer was responsible for the flood. In fact, there is no Lucifer in Judaism, and in Christianity is only extra biblical mythology not supported by scripture and the result of faulty interpretation and translation.

originally posted by: Heresiarch
a reply to: newnature1

Not a very thought provoking OP, as I assumed it would be.

But, Genesis is not even attempting to be a historical record of the creation of the Universe. Even among the most strict literalist theologian it is not believed to be literal.

But how are you going to address the concerns of the religious existential yearning to know person's questions about creation without a creation myth?

Obviously there is no way to explain the origins of the Universe. Science can't do it either.

But I think Genesis is better than the ridiculous big bang theory. At least it doesn't pretend to be factual.

Interesting, the creation myth; but science grew up. I see why religious people wouldn't want science to poke it’s nose into Genesis, because of all their afterlife stories.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: newnature1

And that's a fine assumption, there is no reason to accept that you are wrong or the bible is right
It's a choice for the individual to make

Scientists make decisions based on the opportunity those decisions offer them

Ahhh...more ignorant science bashing by people all too happy to benefit from millions of scientists hard word. I must be on ATS.

What should science's point of view be about this fifth 'a day' in Genesis. There were cave people living during the fifth ‘a day’ in Genesis. That fifth ‘a day’ also took around four and half billion years worth of earths history. Look at the cave people, God didn't create them in his image. Being created in the image of God means that we must view ourselves as intrinsically valuable and richly invested with meaning, potentially and responsibilities. We are to be and to do on a finite scale, what God is and does on an infinite scale.

By virtue of being created in the image of God, human beings are capable of reflecting his character in their own life; animals possess none of these qualities. What distinguishes people from animals is the fact that human nature inherently has godlike possibilities.

Omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence, none of these other divine attributes have been ascribed to the human race as part of the image of God. We have been created to reflect God in our thinking and actions, but the physical sustained by God and dependent upon him for our existence in this world and in the world to come. Developing a godly character in this present life, this will be our personal identity in the world to come. It is the character or personality that we have developed in this life, that God preserves in his memory.

So these cave people, they would have to have everything we have, www.youtube.com...

These cave people wouldn't have a God conscious, like God has given to the human race a God consciousness, the conscious perception that we could say that there is a God somewhere and that ultimately the human race is accountable to that God.

a reply to: newnature1

Actually I would be happy if science did, you like arnt scientists assume way to much

Why not actually offer something of substance other than an invalid vague statement

Scientists are very welcome in the bible

It's irrelevant.
No description or explanations nor processes has been given in the bible how there was everything.
Let there be light, and there was light.
It's simple, but that simplicity didn't give us answers.

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: newnature1
The bible never sets out to prove there is a God. It assumes that God exists and never questions that assumption. Can science ignore the assumptions within Genesis?

Um, yes?

Science doesn't assume anything, it observes and reports verifiable facts.

So science can observe all verifiable fasts about life during that fifth 'a day'. Science can also observe verifiable facts about life being destroyed over and over again during that fifth 'a day'. Should science ask why that life kept being destroyed?

originally posted by: ms898
Science would look at the evidence. Evidence is lacking.... it very well to assume something, but science then has to prove it to get acceptance from the scientific community.

My belief is that they wouldn’t assume it because there is very little evidence that there is a god.

There is fossil evidence of those giants on the earth before the flood. These abnormal beings, their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Yahweh’s Word (Gen. 3:15). Wouldn't science want to know who was behind breeding these beings?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: newnature1

Science and the bible have nothing to do with each other...

There would be no science without the bible?

Science: A method whereby an attempt is made, through observation, experimentation, mathematics, and theory to explain how nature functions and speculate about how it may have come to be (or always was,) with at least as much rigor as possible.

Mysticism and/or philosophy: Concern with and speculation or belief about why nature functions and how it may have come to be (or always was,) and whether or not there is any meaning beyond simply being, and if so, what said meaning might be.

The two get along perfectly well in my mind, and are not mutually exclusive in any way.

Peace.