11-20-2005, 01:27 PM
This, from Truman State University Index.
<b>Churches reconcile theories differently</b>
The beginning of life is no simple question.
Religious organizations on campus and in Kirksville disagree about the extent to which science should use metaphysical proposals in determining the origin of life on Earth.
Of the religious leaders in Kirksville who commented, most said they interpret the creation account in the Bible literally, and of those, most agreed science should include discussion of ideas beyond the natural world. The few religious leaders in the area who said they interpret the Bible more metaphorically said science should make only natural claims, leaving metaphysical ideas to the realm of religion.
Richard Ochs and Charles Leiter, pastors of Lake Road Chapel, said they have academic backgrounds in science and accept biblical accounts of creation as factual. Leiter said the concept of modern science is dependent on a Christian worldview that the universe is rational and man is an objective observer.
"Science, presently defined, is totally materialistic [and] naturalistic, and I don't think that's good science," he said. "In fact, I don't even think it's possible to have science that way. <b>The whole scientific enterprise arose from a Christian worldview. You don't have science in the East. Hinduism didn't lead to science.</b>" <!--emo&:liar liar--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/liar.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='liar.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ochs said the metaphysical and the physical are inseperable. He said present-day science is founded on a metaphysical position that the world is naturalistic, which excludes other means of discovering knowledge.
"Science should be seeking truth," Ochs said. "So, if that happens to include some realms of the supernatural, you don't say, 'That's out of the question, [and] we can't even discuss that.' That's poor science. You've got to have a science that will accept truth wherever it finds it."
<b>Churches reconcile theories differently</b>
The beginning of life is no simple question.
Religious organizations on campus and in Kirksville disagree about the extent to which science should use metaphysical proposals in determining the origin of life on Earth.
Of the religious leaders in Kirksville who commented, most said they interpret the creation account in the Bible literally, and of those, most agreed science should include discussion of ideas beyond the natural world. The few religious leaders in the area who said they interpret the Bible more metaphorically said science should make only natural claims, leaving metaphysical ideas to the realm of religion.
Richard Ochs and Charles Leiter, pastors of Lake Road Chapel, said they have academic backgrounds in science and accept biblical accounts of creation as factual. Leiter said the concept of modern science is dependent on a Christian worldview that the universe is rational and man is an objective observer.
"Science, presently defined, is totally materialistic [and] naturalistic, and I don't think that's good science," he said. "In fact, I don't even think it's possible to have science that way. <b>The whole scientific enterprise arose from a Christian worldview. You don't have science in the East. Hinduism didn't lead to science.</b>" <!--emo&:liar liar--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/liar.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='liar.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ochs said the metaphysical and the physical are inseperable. He said present-day science is founded on a metaphysical position that the world is naturalistic, which excludes other means of discovering knowledge.
"Science should be seeking truth," Ochs said. "So, if that happens to include some realms of the supernatural, you don't say, 'That's out of the question, [and] we can't even discuss that.' That's poor science. You've got to have a science that will accept truth wherever it finds it."