Why do many Christians scorn the method of science. . .?

. . .then at the next moment say that their beliefs are backed by science? Sounds like they're full of crap to me.

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Those who scorn science are usually (note the qualification) limited to the evangelical fundamentalist folks who believe that creationism somehow is related to evolution and that their creation belief clearly disproves evolution.

    I've never understood why they would say that (creation and evolution argue against each other) when there is plenty of evidence for evolution unless they simply do not want to look outside their comfort zone of misguided thinking. Knowledge and acceptance of that knowledge seems to be missing in most of these folks, too.

    TDs expected from the "creation" advocates ("young earth" folks included).

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Science—What Is It?

    According to The World Book Encyclopedia, “science covers the broad field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by principles (rules).” Understandably, there are various kinds of science. The book The Scientist claims: “In theory, almost any kind of knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the scientific method.”

    This makes for some difficulty in defining, with any precision, where one science begins and another ends. In fact, according to The World Book Encyclopedia, “in some cases, sciences may overlap so much that interdisciplinary fields have been established that combine parts of two or more sciences.” Nevertheless, most reference works speak of four main divisions: physical sciences, biological sciences, social sciences, and the science of mathematics and logic.

    Mathematics a science? Yes, without some unified method of measurement, some way of determining how large, how small, how many, how few, how far, how near, how hot, and how cold, productive scientific investigation would have been impossible. So not without reason, mathematics has been called the “Queen and Servant of the Sciences.”

    As for physical sciences, these include chemistry, physics, and astronomy. The main biological sciences are botany and zoology, while social sciences include anthropology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology. (See box on page 8.)

    A distinction must be made between pure science and applied science. The former deals purely with the scientific facts and principles themselves; the latter, with their practical application. Today applied science is also known as technology.

    Religion and science are both examples of mankind’s desire to know the truth. But there is a significant difference between how religious truth is sought on the one hand and scientific truth on the other. A searcher for religious truth will probably turn to the Holy Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, the Vedas, or the Tripitaka, depending on whether he is a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist. There he will find what is considered by his religion to be a revelation of religious truth, possibly deriving from a divine source and therefore viewed as a final authority.

    However, the searcher for scientific truth has no such final authority to turn to—neither a book nor an individual. Scientific truth is not revealed; it is discovered. This necessitates a system of trial and error, with the searcher for scientific truth often finding himself in a fruitless endeavor. But by systematically following four steps, he pursues a fruitful search. (See box “Arriving at Truth the Scientific Way.”) Nevertheless, scientific victories are celebrated on the ruins of scientific defeats as formerly accepted views are rejected to make way for new ones viewed as more nearly correct.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    It's US TV. A&E has neither arts nor entertainment, CNN gave up on actual news years ago, Faux Noise never had any, and the SyFy channel fails to carry actual SF. But, your whine fails on one point; There IS life in the Universe that got here through natural processes; All Earth life. There is NO good reason to ASSume that such natural processes cannot work elsewhere. In fact, given what we know about the processes, there is good reason that they would work on other planets that have the basic starting conditions for life. So, while it's not accurate to state, categorically, that there MUST be life elsewhere, the odds for it are high, while the odds for your deity being real, due to the TOTAL lack of evidence for it, are Zero Point Infinity Zero. Sux to be you !

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    We don't scorn all the methods of science.

    We scorn ignorance, single-mindedness, and general presumptuousness that accompanies many people who attack (notice that I said attack) religion. Instead of at least hearing what we have to say they slander us and make blanket statements of us based of a few people.

    Our beliefs are backed by science (to an extent), not the ignorance of many of those who go out to attack religion.

    We christians don't hate science as well, we love it. Only the extremists hate science, but they are such a small number that they don't count for all of us -sadly, the ignorant people make blanket statements about all of us relating to them, so in their eyes we all hate science.

    Source(s): Catholic.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Like in most things, you're in error again. Christians do not oppose science. How can we? Our maker and creator is the greatest scientist. Some religions have tried to dominate the minds of people and have said and done many things without Gods authority. Do you want to hold us to everything everybody who says they're Christian has said? Would it be okay then to hold you to everything that people who don't believe have said?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    It's not the method, it's the science that is often called "junk science." It's method is payola from the government to make statements that might sound scientific to the unscientific. At least with me it is.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • "50 Nobel Laureates"

    Out of nearly 1000.

    Source(s): typo
    • Login to reply the answers
  • Cyber
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    I scorn psudoscience like that reptilian dude's answer

    • Login to reply the answers
  • I love science, just not bad science.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Science are only speculation.

    Atheists are dead.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.