For those who assume supporting a Trump presidency over a Biden one means being a MAGA Trumper....

[Fuzzy1975]

The point of the video, which is why I am going to post evidence whether you want to see it, is that just about every major discovery or law on which science is built, was made or discovered by devout Christians, or at least believers in God, many of whom were also eloquent theologians and wrote powerful texts, who did not believe faith and science were separate at all.

I'm not denying religious people have discovered and created many wonderful things. I recall when Copernicus discovered the universe didn't revolve around the earth. Now Copernicus was a devote religious man, and the church did bestow glorious praise upon him, I think. Einstein was also religious and stated God wouldn't play dice with the Universe. But so far no one has found God, or his Dice.

In fact, the very concept of science was based on the idea that there is a Creator, He built in Laws into the universe, and we can discover them and learn more about Him through them. The same goes with just about every other area of study. The very founders of scientific and mathematic studies openly, in their own words and writings, disagree with you.

The abacus was invented long before Christianity reared it's ugly head, but the Greeks were very devout to their Gods....

 

[JaySecrets]

Do you understand the difference between DNA and Chromosomes?

Funny.... By simply going to the text I blow the whole "the Bible supports abortion" and "the Bible says nothing about the sanctity of life in the womb" argument out of the water, and you rush to flood the space so that no one will read the evidence against you and deflect, deflect, deflect.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I just gave you WHAT MORSE HIMSELF SAID ABOUT IT and you ignore his own words! Then you continue to say it's just what I believe!? How willfully ignorant are you really?

Where did the quote below come from? Was it attributed to Morse?

Since you can't be bothered to actually read what was actually said....

“Credit for applying the verse to this occasion belongs to Nancy Goodrich Ellsworth, who suggested it to her daughter Annie, who in turn provided it to Morse… The quotation proved the perfect proved the perfect choice, capturing the inventor’s own passionate Christian faith and conception of himself as an instrument of providence. As Morse later commented, the message ‘baptized the American Telegraphy with the name of its author’: God.

No it was not, it came from one of your sources.

 

[JaySecrets]

Holy fuck you are one very delusional and conceited person. None of this is correct.

I get that you believe it and you find videos of people who agree with you, but that does not make your statements here factual, in any way

All of it is very correct, which is why I am looking for a good video... since you clearly don't bother reading text with information you don't like and it's a very long list of names and quotes

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Funny.... By simply going to the text I blow the whole "the Bible supports abortion" and "the Bible says nothing about the sanctity of life in the womb" argument out of the water, and you rush to flood the space so that no one will read the evidence against you and deflect, deflect, deflect.

DNA and Chromosomes have nothing to do with abortion. I am just asking if you know the difference between them?

I have already stated on this site I am opposed to abortion. I have stated that for years. However my views, are my own. People and in in the case of Abortion, women, have the right to decide what is the appropriate medical procedures for themselves.

I don't really give a fuck what the bible writers say about it.

 

[JaySecrets]

Where did the quote below come from? Was it attributed to Morse?

No it was not, it came from one of your sources.

As Morse later commented, the message ‘baptized the American Telegraphy with the name of its author’

It baptised the American telegraph with the name of its Author.
Comment on the choice of a biblical text as the inaugural message.

— Samuel F. B. Morse

Cited in Emma Miller Bolenius, Advanced Lessons in Everyday English (1921), quoting from Francis M. Perry, Four American Inventors.

 

[ll74]

All of it is very correct, which is why I am looking for a good video... since you clearly don't bother reading text with information you don't like and it's a very long list of names and quotes

Your claims are simply incorrect and based on your conceited belief. No matter how many videos or blog posts you provide, it continues to be cherry picked bullshit.

There are religious people who have contributed to society and science. There are non-religioua people who have contributed to society and science. There are subsets that have different religions and different gods than you.

 

[JaySecrets]

DNA and Chromosomes have nothing to do with abortion. I am just asking if you know the difference between them?

I have already stated on this site I am opposed to abortion. I have stated that for years. However my views, are my own. People and in in the case of Abortion, women, have the right to decide what is the appropriate medical procedures for themselves.

I don't really give a fuck what the bible writers say about it.

Whether you care or not, the topic was raised and misquoted badly. Whether you feel like they should have a choice to kill the BABY or not, it is still murder. And right now I am far more focused on answering a direct challenge on here that has to do with the life of innocent children in the womb and the validity of faith in science that is relevant to that part of the conversation. But your adding post after post buries an answer to a serious challenge so that others won't go back and read it and a serious lie stands.... So you will excuse me for ignoring your answers at this point, at least for a while?

 

[JaySecrets]

@JadeKnight
“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.
If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him. If ever you take your neighbor’s cloak in pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down, for that is his only covering, and it is his cloak for his body; in what else shall he sleep? And if he cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.
You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.
You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.
You shall be consecrated to me. Therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by beasts in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs.

That is Exodus 22:21-30. Please point out where it says what you claim it does. Pretty sure you are getting references wrong.

The passage is Exodus 21. And here is what it says:

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Did you catch that? If the baby is not hurt, there is just a fine. If the baby is hurt, it’s eye for eye, hand for hand, foot for foot, life for life. The preborn baby’s life is given the same value as every human life. Hmmm. Does the theme continue? Lets find out.

Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.

Sure sounds like Leviticus isn’t saying what you claim it does in relation to Exodus 21. In fact it’s reenforcing the value of every human life. Including the pre-born.

As pointed out earlier, you did not put a legitimate reference for the claim that the Bible gives abortion instructions to the priest, so I will search surrounding chapters for you… I can’t find a reference for what you claim anywhere. SO unless you can provide one for me to look up….

SO the answer you are trying so hard to bury on here isn't burried.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Whether you care or not, the topic was raised and misquoted badly. Whether you feel like they should have a choice to kill the BABY or not, it is still murder. And right now I am far more focused on answering a direct challenge on here that has to do with the life of innocent children in the womb and the validity of faith in science that is relevant to that part of the conversation. But your adding post after post buries an answer to a serious challenge so that others won't go back and read it and a serious lie stands.... So you will excuse me for ignoring your answers at this point, at least for a while?

It’s in no way murder.

 

[JaySecrets]

@JadeKnight pt. 2

This last claim is so crazy as to not even deserve response, but I will respond anyway…

Here is the full quote:

All these curses shall come upon you and pursue you and overtake you till you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that he commanded you. They shall be a sign and a wonder against you and your offspring forever. Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart, because of the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness, and lacking everything. And he will put a yoke of iron on your neck until he has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand, a hard-faced nation who shall not respect the old or show mercy to the young. It shall eat the offspring of your cattle and the fruit of your ground, until you are destroyed; it also shall not leave you grain, wine, or oil, the increase of your herds or the young of your flock, until they have caused you to perish.
They shall besiege you in all your towns, until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout all your land. And they shall besiege you in all your towns throughout all your land, which the Lord your God has given you. And you shall eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies shall distress you. The man who is the most tender and refined among you will begrudge food to his brother, to the wife he embraces, and to the last of the children whom he has left, so that he will not give to any of them any of the flesh of his children whom he is eating, because he has nothing else left, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy shall distress you in all your towns. The most tender and refined woman among you, who would not venture to set the sole of her foot on the ground because she is so delicate and tender, will begrudge to the husband she embraces, to her son and to her daughter, her afterbirth that comes out from between her feet and her children whom she bears, because lacking everything she will eat them secretly, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy shall distress you in your towns.



That isn’t a command. That is a warning of a curse because of disobedience. It is a warning that they will become so desperate and warped in their thinking that they will even do the unthinkable: cannibalize the offspring God gave them. Quite the opposite of proving your point, it shows the sickness of mind it takes to disregard and destroy that human life. It shows that, when you are under that level of delusion, you are under a curse, under judgement by God.

Now lets see what the Bibe does say on the topic, since you brought it up so directly.

Jeremiah 1:4-5

Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying,

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

and before you were born I consecrated you;

I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

God tells the prophet that in his preborn state he was already known, consecrated and ordained.

Psalm 139:11-16

If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,

and the light about me be night,”

even the darkness is not dark to you;

the night is bright as the day,

for darkness is as light with you.

For you formed my inward parts;

you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Wonderful are your works;

my soul knows it very well.

My frame was not hidden from you,

when I was being made in secret,

intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

Your eyes saw my unformed substance;

in your book were written, every one of them,

the days that were formed for me,

when as yet there was none of them.

In this stunning and beautiful Psalm of praise, the Psalmist’s life is considered precious and specially made while that life was still in the womb. I particularly love the word-picture in verse 15. It is particularly descriptive and perfectly put.

Job 10:11-13

You clothed me with skin and flesh,

and knit me together with bones and sinews.

You have granted me life and steadfast love,

and your care has preserved my spirit.

Yet these things you hid in your heart;

I know that this was your purpose.

Who was that who put the skin on the pre-born baby, who knits that baby together in the womb (a perfect description, and a beautiful one, by the way)? Who gave life to that baby in the womb? Who put His love and care on that pre-born child? Oh. God Himself.

I could go on, but at this point I’ll just list more references in the Old Testament that you can look up:

Isaiah 64:8

Psalm 127:3-5

Isaiah 49:1-5

So much for the Old Testament not valuing the pre-born human life.

Well, the New Testament surely is silent on the subject though, right?

Not quite. While it is not a book of law, per se, and while the New Testament, far from negating the Old, fulfills and completes it, and so the Testament isn’t rehashing every subject already addressed in the Old, it certainly has examples of the value God puts on children. There is one particular passage that I particularly love because of what it shows, by implication, of how God sees the unborn child.

Before that though, to show that the Old Testament is not negated by the new, a very direct statement by Jesus Himself should suffice. There are several similar statements and points made throughout the New Testament, but since you put the value higher on the “letters in red” (I don’t, because God spoke ALL of them) here’s what Jesus had to say:

Matthew 5:17-22

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire…

There is a lot to unpack there, but I think the point is made clearly enough for now.

So, my favorite passage regarding the pre-born baby in the New Testament:

Luke 1:39-45

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

This is the preamble to what most people know as the Magnificat. Mary is visiting her cousin Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, the prophesied forerunner of Jesus the Messiah. Jesus is in Mary’s womb. John is in Elizabeth’s womb. When the forerunner, John, hears the voice of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and knows he is in the presence of the pre-born Messiah, the pre-born John leaps for joy in the womb! This is, in fact, the context for Mary’s famous song. The song is a response to the actions, identities, and already active callings on two pre-born babies. That, in any reasonable mind looking at Scripture, should easily seal the deal.

You may not like what Scripture says about when life begins and what value God puts on it. You may not even honor or respect Scripture and its authority. But please be honest enough with the text to not try and make it devalue an innocent life the way you do. You say you looked and couldn't find anyting. You didn't look very hard then.

So the answer you are trying so hard to bury on here doesn't get buried... part 2 of that answer

 

[JaySecrets]

It’s in no way murder.

Already disproven, in spite of your love for killing babies

 

[JaySecrets]

 

[ll74]

Already disproven, in spite of your love for killing babies

If you ignore definitions of words, then yes.....disproven

 

[JaySecrets]

https://www.scijournal.org/articles/famous-christian-scientists

 

[JaySecrets]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Already disproven, in spite of your love for killing babies

It's hard to believe, but you make trumptards look dumber than usual.

 

[ll74]

https://www.scijournal.org/articles/famous-christian-scientists

Now do non christian scientists.

 

[JaySecrets]

The Influence of Christian Theology​

Methodological naturalism is a convention that has been around really only since the late 19th century. Science actually got started in a very explicitly theistic—indeed Christian—milieu. The period of time that historians call the Scientific Revolution is roughly 1300 to 1700. There's debate about when it actually started and how much the Protestants versus Catholics were responsible, but clearly theological ideas—Christian theological ideas—had a huge in the formation and foundation of modern science.


One of those key ideas was the idea of intelligibility: that nature is intelligible. There's an order and design that can be understood and discerned by the scientist because nature is the product of a rational mind, namely the mind of God, and that that same mind or creator who made nature with that rational order built into it made us and our reason, so that we could perceive and understand the reason that he built into nature. That was what gave people confidence to do the hard work of investigation to figure out the hidden order, the design that is beneath the appearances of natural phenomenon.

Since the order in nature is contingent on the act of the Creator, we have to go and look and see what kind of order he put into it.

The Order of Nature​

The first thing to say is that science did not arise because of a set of naturalistic presuppositions. It actually arose because of a conviction that there was a lawful order in nature, that human beings could discern and understand it because they'd been made in the image of the creator of that order, and that also they needed to go investigate. While they might expect that there's a rational order there (the Greeks believe the same), they also knew the rational order was contingent on the choice of the creator.


This was a product of recovering the doctrine of creation in the late Middle Ages. Since the order in nature is contingent on the act of the Creator, we have to go and look and see what kind of order he put into it. We can't just simply sit in our armchairs and deduce it from logical first principles.


The Greeks and ptolemaic astronomy were a good example of this. They figured that since the most perfect form of motion is a circle, and since the planets are in a heavenly realm, they must be inscribing circular orbits. But, in fact, they were doing ellipses.


So the early modern scientists broke with the ancient Greeks and said since nature is created by God and he could have done otherwise, we need to go and find out not what he must have done, as Robert Boyle said, but what he did do—which means empirical investigation. You've got to look and see.


There were a number of ways in which Christianity gave rise to modern science, and the idea that a set of naturalistic assumptions is necessary to do science is just historically false.

 

[ll74]

The Influence of Christian Theology​

Methodological naturalism is a convention that has been around really only since the late 19th century. Science actually got started in a very explicitly theistic—indeed Christian—milieu. The period of time that historians call the Scientific Revolution is roughly 1300 to 1700. There's debate about when it actually started and how much the Protestants versus Catholics were responsible, but clearly theological ideas—Christian theological ideas—had a huge in the formation and foundation of modern science.


One of those key ideas was the idea of intelligibility: that nature is intelligible. There's an order and design that can be understood and discerned by the scientist because nature is the product of a rational mind, namely the mind of God, and that that same mind or creator who made nature with that rational order built into it made us and our reason, so that we could perceive and understand the reason that he built into nature. That was what gave people confidence to do the hard work of investigation to figure out the hidden order, the design that is beneath the appearances of natural phenomenon.

The Order of Nature​

The first thing to say is that science did not arise because of a set of naturalistic presuppositions. It actually arose because of a conviction that there was a lawful order in nature, that human beings could discern and understand it because they'd been made in the image of the creator of that order, and that also they needed to go investigate. While they might expect that there's a rational order there (the Greeks believe the same), they also knew the rational order was contingent on the choice of the creator.


This was a product of recovering the doctrine of creation in the late Middle Ages. Since the order in nature is contingent on the act of the Creator, we have to go and look and see what kind of order he put into it. We can't just simply sit in our armchairs and deduce it from logical first principles.


The Greeks and ptolemaic astronomy were a good example of this. They figured that since the most perfect form of motion is a circle, and since the planets are in a heavenly realm, they must be inscribing circular orbits. But, in fact, they were doing ellipses.


So the early modern scientists broke with the ancient Greeks and said since nature is created by God and he could have done otherwise, we need to go and find out not what he must have done, as Robert Boyle said, but what he did do—which means empirical investigation. You've got to look and see.


There were a number of ways in which Christianity gave rise to modern science, and the idea that a set of naturalistic assumptions is necessary to do science is just historically false.

Cite

 

[JaySecrets]

Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science?

BY ERIC V. SNOW |
The Duhem-Jaki and Merton Theses Explained
Did Christianity hinder the development of science? Most intellectuals these days believe it did, citing as evidence the showdown between Galileo and the Inquisition in the seventeenth century over geocentrism, and Thomas Huxley embarrassing Bishop Wilberforce in a climactic debate about evolution in 1860. But is this stereotype historically accurate? Scholars affirm that modern science arose among the theologians, monks, and professors of Medieval and Renaissance Catholic universities and monasteries. But if Christianity and science are supposedly so incompatible, how did science gradually arise during the Medieval and Renaissance periods in Europe? After all, neither Galileo nor Copernicus (who maintained the sun was at the center of the solar system), were unbelievers. Remarkably, as shown by the historical research of Pierre Duhem, Stanley Jaki, and (partially) Robert Merton, the worldview of Christianity was necessary for the rise of modern science.

Technological Advance Does Not Equal Science​

In order to deny Christianity's role in the rise of science, skeptics make it seem that all cultures developed "science" by using a weak definition of it. But the inventions affecting daily life in the pre-modern world were "empirical" discoveries by craftsmen, not scientists meditating on the laws of nature. Although the Greeks, Chinese, Indians, and Arabs all had what could be called "science," their science soon fizzled out, clearly lacking the rigor and vigor that characterized Christendom's science from Galileo onwards.
The Duhem-Jaki thesis denies that sociological, materialist, externalist causes are sufficient conditions to create modern science. As Jaki (1988, p.35) says:

This historiography of science has still to face up honestly to the problem of why three great ancient cultures (China, India, and Egypt) display, independently of one another, a similar pattern vis-a-vis science. The pattern is the stillbirth of science in each of them in spite of the availability of talents, social organization, and peace—the standard explanatory devices furnished by all-knowing sociologies of science on which that historiography relies ever more heavily.

Although all of these conditions may be necessary to allow a civilization to develop science, they are not sufficient. To explain why only one particular civilization generated a self-sustaining, modern science and not another, we must also look at their intellectual and philosophical climates.

The Philosophical Ideas a Culture Needs to Develop Science​

According to Duhem and Jaki, a civilization must have certain ideas to keep science self-sustaining, instead of dying out after a few centuries of progress. First, time should be conceived as linear and potentially quantifiable. This understanding of time allows the cause-effect relationships of nature to be much more readily noticed since it clearly distinguishes past, present, and future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this idea stems from the act of God in creating the material universe from nothing at some specific moment in the past. Time is seen as then marching forward through the present on into the future to the day of judgment. The alternative pagan view sees time as repeating itself. The concept of the "Great Year" maintained that centuries-long time cycles exist. Making permanent progress of any kind theoretically impossible, the ancient world's conception of time believed the future repeated the past. This bred a sense of complacency, hindering the development of science. Both reincarnation and the transmigration of souls reflect this view of time.
Second, if science is to exist, explanations of natural phenomena must avoid a priori, pseudo-scientific "explanations" that really do not describe the actual causes of events. Third, the organismic view of nature hinders the development of science. Believing the whole universe is alive, it perceives the world as one huge organism that undergoes the above mentioned cyclical process of birth, maturity, death, and rebirth. Its tie to pantheism—believing everything is God, a view common in Hinduism (and "New Age" environmentalism!)—is obvious. Today, most Westerners consider rocks, stars, oceans, etc. to be inanimate objects; the organismic view regards them as having intelligences of their own. Fourth, denying the reality and basic orderliness of the universe hampers the development of science. Humans seldom will investigate carefully what they don't think really exists, or what the gods or nature herself will change unpredictably at whim.
Fifth, as a subset of the organismic view of nature issue, a scientific astronomy can only develop if the heavens are not believed to be alive or divine. Sixth, a balance between reason and faith is necessary. The religious people must not totally reject natural laws while the scientists must not deny the possibility of religious truth. And seventh, man needs to be seen as fundamentally different from the rest of nature, having a mind that makes him qualitatively different from the animals. In the Judeo-Christian worldview, Genesis implicitly makes this point, since man and woman were made in God's image and were given dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:26-29). Reincarnation denies this by claiming the souls of animals enter humans and vice versa as they die and are reborn.

​

 

[JaySecrets]

Pt. 2

Christian Ideas Drive Out Pagan Ideas​

So long as a great majority of a given culture's intellectuals believe all or most of these false ideas, a self-sustaining science can't arise, especially a true science of physical objects in the external real world. Christianity's worldview contained ideas about the nature of the universe which drove out pagan concepts that had prevented the development of science. For these reasons, in his majestic ten-volume work, Le Systeme du Monde, Pierre Duhem declared that the birth of science came in 1277 with the Bishop of Paris' condemnation of 219 assorted (Aristotelian) philosophical conceptions.
Some civilizations had all or most of these false ideas (such as Hindu India), some had fewer (China), and one or two still fewer (Islam). Correspondingly, the last progressed further in science compared to the first two since it accepted these ideas less, and the second more than the first. For instance, the Chinese lacked the delusion that the heavens were divine and/or living. But this idea appears in On the Heavens, a very influential work by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. This idea inhibited indigenous Islamic science permanently. But almost all these faulty intellectual ideas ultimately combined to crush Hindu science: It denied the external real world and its orderliness, it espoused eternal cycles and the organismic view of nature, and it proclaimed the divinity of the heavens. To the extent Hindu ideas influenced Chinese thought through Buddhism, Chinese science was strangled in its cradle. Islamic science might have become self-sustaining, if its holy book, the Quran, had not emphasized God's will and power above His reason, and if Muslim scientists had not been so uncritical of Aristotle's physics while their top theologians remained so mystical. It is vitally important to realize that new ideas of Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo didn't just pop out of thin air. Instead, they built upon the writings of such medieval predecessors as Buridan and Oresme. Duhem and Jaki strongly emphasize that these two men took the first steps in forming the conceptual foundations of modern physics by starting to break with Aristotle's physics.

The Merton Thesis Stated​

The Mertons thesis sees certain seventeenth-century Puritan moral values as encouraging scientific work. Merton lists various values that promoted science among Puritan Englishmen. First, a Christian was to glorify God and serve Him through doing activities of utility to the community as a whole, not the contemplative, monastic ideal of withdrawal from the community that characterized much of Medieval Catholicism. By emphasizing a vocation, again something collectively useful to the community, Puritanism encouraged diligence, industry, and hard work. Consequently, the individual chooses the vocation that best suits his abilities. Reason and education were both praised in this context. Education, however, was to be practical and not highly literary in content. The scientific method needs both an empiricist ("practical") and rationalist ("theoretical") approach to gaining knowledge to work properly, which is an issue Jaki repeatedly returns to. Puritanism provided both while promoting empiricism by encouraging the search for the knowledge needed to serve one's calling (i.e., "career") and to be useful to the community as a whole.

English Puritan Scientists​

It's easy to document the religious values and beliefs of many English scientists of this period. John Ray (1627-1705), the great biologist, told a friend that time spent investigating nature was well used: "What time you have to spare you will do well to spend, as you are doing, in the inquisition and contemplation of the works of God and nature." Forty-two of the 68 founding members of the Royal Society (England's premier scientific organization) for which their religious background is known were Puritans. Since the English population was mostly mainstream Anglican in belief, the high proportion of Puritans in it implies their values encouraged scientific endeavors. Sir Robert Moray, Sir William Petty, Robert Boyle, John Wilkins, John Wallis, and Jonathan Goddard were all prominent leaders of the Royal Society—and all Puritans.

Science and Christianity are Compatible​

The hard facts of history, as found in the writings of Duhem, Jaki, and Merton, destroy the common claim of evolutionists that Christianity and science are necessarily incompatible. Much like how German sociologist Max Weber attributed the rise of capitalism to Protestantism's values, Merton's thesis maintains that the values of English Puritanism promoted scientific work. More significantly, Duhem and Jaki's research insists that the philosophical beliefs of Christianity had to drive out the anti-scientific conceptions of paganism in order for science to be born. Far from man's mind, the beliefs of the Bible ultimately freed him from the pagan dogmas that prevented the expression of his reason through a self-sustaining science.

Selected References​

Stanley Jaki, The Origin of Science and the Science of Its Origin (South Bend, IN: Regnery/Gateway, 1978).
Stanley Jaki, The Savior of Science (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1988).
Robert K. Merton, "Science in Seventeenth Century England," Osiris, 1938, pp. 360-632.

 

[JaySecrets]

Cite

https://www.crossway.org/articles/how-christianity-gave-rise-to-modern-science/

Even has a video version so you don't have to work too hard and actually read

 

[ll74]

https://www.crossway.org/articles/how-christianity-gave-rise-to-modern-science/

Even has a video version so you don't have to work too hard and actually read

It's an argument that is supported by belief, not by facts. You should figure out how to actually use the quote button when quoting.

You can believe that your conceited belief is fact, but it is not.

 

[JaySecrets]

Amazing Scientific Insights of the Bible
by Don Johnson, Ph.D., Computer Science Department, Azusa Pacific University
Scientia (Latin root word): knowledge or truth
Natural science Study of truths found in nature
Computer science Study of logical/computational truths
Social science Study of truths found in society
Science can be Exact/Inexact and Operational/Historical
Christianity and Science
"The sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpreted by rational minds...That
is…dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the
forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams but the
faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely
one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its
origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained
by that assumption." (Loren Eisley, Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It, 1961)
Great scientists who were Christians include Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, Maxwell, Boyle, Pascal, Pasteur,
Kepler, and Galileo.
The scientific concern of science and the supernatural
"The creationist can easily explain any phenomenon by simply saying 'God did it.' This approach, though it
may be perfectly correct in the absolute sense, does not foster further inquiry and is therefore intellectually
emasculated." (William Stansfield, The Science of Evolution, 1977)
Biblical Basis for Study of Science and the Bible
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37,
NIV)
“For the Lord gives wisdom, and from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.” (Proverbs 2:6, NIV)
“Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science
falsely so called.” (1 Timothy 6:20-21, KJV)
Amazing scientific insight (for such "primitive" people)
Mass and Energy Conservation: (delta E) + c2(delta M) = 0
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1)
“His work has been finished since the creation of the world.” (Heb. 4:4)
“The Son is ... sustaining all things by this powerful word.”(Heb. 1:3)
God is omnipotent, "easily" converting some power to mass
Conversion: 931 Mev/amu = 9x1013j/g = 2.6x107 kwh/g
(12-ounces of soda Æ 106 homes' energy for 1 year) (2 Peter 3:7-10)
Naturalism requires "matter from nothing", or "eternal existence"
Second LAW of thermodynamics: entropy (S) always increases
a) Perpetual-motion is impossible since everything runs-down
b) Directed energy is required for an isolated entropy decrease
c) Living organisms are energy rich (0.27 ev/at lower entropy)
d) Evolution requires decrease in entropy (complexity increases)
“Creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay.”
(Romans 8:21; also Psalm 102:25-26)
Man is “fearfully and wonderfully made,” Psalm 139:14
105 genes, each with > 103 bits of information (overlapping)
1013 distinctive traits by DNA sequence
>60,000 bases in folded 6', 10-16 gram chain
3·1010 rungs of digital self-correcting encoded information
Information in 1 teaspoon of DNA: all people + all books
Even the "simplest" organism's DNA has > 5000 nucleotides
DNA/RNA must be fully-formed/functional (with enzymes/proteins)
Each cell is a complex chemical factory (10-13 of Viking spacecraft's size)
<1 second to do what scientists can manufacture in weeks
Self-replicating, 3-D, networked computing/storage system
>1015 human brain interconnections, performing1015 operations/second
1 second of optic nerve's data would take >2 Cray hours to process
Talking: >105 neuromuscular events/second, using >100 muscles
(controlling diaphragm, tongue, cheeks, jaw, etc.)
Life’s complexity allows a maximum probability of forming:
a) a biologically functional amino acid: 1 part in 10175
c) a normal protein of molecular wt 20,000: ½ part in 10320
d) the required enzymes for life: 1 part in 1040000
e) a living, self-replicating cell: 1 part in 10100000000000
Fixity of Kinds: “according to their kinds” (Genesis 1)
The fossil record supports creation with:
a) a multitude of life in the oldest fossil-bearing rocks
b) fixity of species over "eons" of time (NO transitional forms)
There is no known evolution mechanism (classical/neo-Darwin)
Chance has NO causative effect: it NEVER produces information!
Astronomy: Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22
“I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on
the seashore.” (Genesis 22)
1011 galaxies, 1011 stars each (only 4,000 of 1022 stars viewable)
“He stretches out (expanding) the heavens like a tent.” (Psalm 104:2)
Earth: (orbit, rotation, atmosphere, etc. "designed" for life)
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth.”(Isaiah 40:22)
“He suspends the earth over nothing.” (Job 26:7)
“He ... fixed securely the fountains of the deep.” (Proverbs 8:27)
Deep valleys in the ocean (>5 mi) described in Psalm 104.
The water cycle is described in Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 and Job 36:27-29
The Universe is “fine-tuned” to allow for life on earth
“An accuracy of one part in 1010123...the precision needed to set the universe on its course.”
Penrose in The Emperor’s New Mind, p.344
“He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not
create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited.” (Isaiah 45:18)
Health: Laws on washing, quarantine, & diet (especially Leviticus 13-14)
Biology: >250 botanical terms, hundreds of animals described
Description of crucifixion 1000 years before it existed: Psalm 22
Events (v1, 6-8, 18) and graphic description (v14-17)
Bones out of joint, dehydration, pierced hand and feet
Pericardial infusion: heart like wax (John 19:34-35)
(Jesus literally died from a broken heart)
Linguistics & Etymology (study of language & words)
Genesis 11: 1 & 8 -- No "primitive language" exists
"The most ancient languages, for which we have written texts -- Sanskrit, for example -- are often far more
intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many contemporary languages,"
(What is Linguistics? p.44).
There are ~24,000 ethnic groups with 6,000 different languages.
Tower of Babel (>700' high) described by Herodotus 500 BC
Archaeological verifications--things "higher criticism" discounted
Ebla Tablets include descriptions of many Biblical people, cities
(Sodom, Gomorrah, Zoar, Jerusalem, Salim) and Creation
Jericho's walls (Joshua 6:20) DID fall flat
Annihilated Canaanite tribes (Edomites, Moabites, etc.) existed
The events/circumstances of Daniel have been substantiated
Dead Sea Scrolls verified many people, places, and events of the New Testament
"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible...has been progressively discredited. Discovery after
discovery has established the accuracy of the Bible as a source of history." (The Archaeology of Palestine)
Statistical probabilities of fulfilled specific prophecies
One chance in:
Tyre: 7x107 Samaria: 4x104 Edom: 1x104
Babylon: 5x109 Jerusalem: 8x1010 Jericho: 2x105
Moab: 1x103 Palestine: 2x105 Gaza: 1x104
For all 9 of the above to occur: 1 in 2x1054
e.g., Tyre (Ezekiel 26:3-21, 570 BC) prophecies include:
1) Nebuchadnezzar destroys (v8): in 538 BC
2) Many nations against (v3): included Babylonia, Greece, etc.
3) Into the sea to be a bare rock (v4-5, 12): Alexander (332 BC)
4) Never rebuilt (v14, 21): today fishermen dry their nets there
Calculated probability of 48 Messianic prophecies is 1 in 10157
(Jesus uniquely fulfilled 60 major prophecies) (Science Speaks)
Conclusions
The Bible IS reliable and can be trusted (2 Timothy 3:16).
Christian faith is fact-based, not "blind" or "anti-logic" (John 8:32).
Our knowledge on any subject is limited (1 Corinthians 13:12).
Proven reliability increases confidence in accuracy of predictions
(Heaven, Hell, judgment, salvation, etc. are based on faith).
The world is blind to many truths (Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 1:18-2