Conference on Christianity and Science

The apparent conflict between Science and Christianity is the subject to be addressed at a day conference in Inverness which will bring together three expert speakers on the theme.

The WorldConference on Christianity & Science

Inverness East Church Hall,

 Margaret Street, Inverness IV1 1LU

Saturday, 28 August, 2010

Dr Murdo MacDonald:
Director of the Church of Scotland's Science, Religion and Technology Project.

The Rev Dr Alistair Donald:
Church of Scotland Minister currently serving as Chaplain to Herriot Watt University.

The Rev Dr Arthur Fraser:
Minister and a former University Lecturer.

10.30am - Registration and Tea/Coffee
11.30am - Murdo MacDonald
‘Science and Christianity: Friends or Foes?'
12.45pm - Lunch
1.30pm - Alistair Donald
'What is Intelligent Design?'
2.45pm - Coffee
3.15pm - Arthur Fraser
'Can Christians believe in an Old Earth?'
4.30pm - Finish

Conference Fee: £5                 Bring a Packed Lunch: Tea and Coffee provided

Further information: Tel. 01463 236695

East Church, Inverness, 14/08/2010

(page   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9)
Duncan Tamsett (Guest) 06/09/2010 17:19
I agree that few will look at the ICR website with an open mind. Most will be looking to have their belief in 6DC confirmed. Some will be wanting to find flaws, or merely wanting to have a laugh (and I accept that is a poor reason to view the website).

But i do not agree about the Name. A 'Dept. Of Evolutionary Psychology' does not attempt to prove Evolution. It is assumed. (But nothing it infers re Psychology will be valid if Evolution is shown to be false). However, the ICR wishes to prove 6DC and therefore its name is inappropriate (if it wishes what it does to be taken seriously as Science). 'Answers in Genesis' suffers from the same flaw. An Institute intending honest enquiry would absolutely not put the Conclusion it has decided it is going to come to into the Name of the Institute.
George Orr 06/09/2010 17:39

Dishing everyone that is against your opinion does not make it so. (arrogance noted)
What my side says is science and what others say is not!!!!

We all have the same evidence, so why not stick to debating the evidence.
If you are a Christian what do you think about the scriptures that have been quoted?

Duncan Tamsett (Guest) 07/09/2010 10:17
A literal 6 Day Creation; A literal Adam; Before Adam, nothing died; "The Fall"; "The Flood"; I'll add "The Rapture"; A cleverly and elaborately devised edifice of Theology, all approved, and duly signed up to. Graceless Christianity. As vacuuous and as groundless as any other religeon.

If you simply read the Bible, you meet the Man, Yeshua.

I want to know Him. The rest you can keep please, I do not want Any of it.
George Orr 07/09/2010 12:37
You'll find the whole book is about Him, not just the PC sanitised bits.
A P Elsworthy (Guest) 07/09/2010 14:20
There is very little actually known about Jesus Christ's life; there are lots of individuals and groups that are quick to tell you [with gusto and confidence] all about him in the written and spoken word, but much of it fails scientific, academic, and commonsense tests. The bible quoters with their line by line swallowing and interpreting are the worst; their gusto and unwarranted confidence beggars belief and some of it is caused by academic or intellectual laziness; some of them have no doubt been nobbled by sunday school and others have been easily led. It is so perplexing. Many of them make a virtue of believing without grains of proof.
The bible writers even have a little go at a character called 'Doubting Thomas' for being distrustful, whereas this character, real or imagined, is merely trying to make a sane assessment of what he is being told.
Penny Lee 07/09/2010 15:38
Re Thomas,

There are two things here. Firstly, Thomas was around Jesus for years and must have known what was going to happen. However, I don't think the Bible is harsh on Thomas at all and he was given all the proof he needed to finally accept what had happened.

Secondly, Thomas wasn't the only one who wouldn't believe. "he appeared first to Mary Magdalene....When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.......these returned and reported it to the rest, but they did not believe them either. Later, Jesus appeared to the rest....He rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen Him after He had arisen."

Considering this stubborn refusal to believe, even when it happened amongst them, are we really surprised when people will not believe it today? Even when he appeared in their midst and showed them the scars in his hands and feet, they thought he was a ghost and still wouldn't believe until he took something to eat to prove he wasn't in spirit form.

Secondly, Jesus Himself said, " Whosoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Finally, this verse really sums it all up for us even today, "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20v29).

Donald Boyd 14/09/2010 01:03
Duncan writes: “If you simply read the Bible, you meet the Man, Yeshua. I want to know Him. The rest you can keep please, I do not want Any of it.”

Among the rest that you want to ignore is Paul’s warning “avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith” 1Tim 6:20-21.

A P Elsworthy: Doubting Thomas is a good example to quote. He wanted to play the scientist and perform an experiment – otherwise he would not believe in Jesus' resurrection from the dead Jn 20:25. Instead, Jesus taught him the importance of believing credible testimony Jn 20:29.

George Orr 16/09/2010 21:51
Richard Dawkins

Speechless then Gibberish!
Alec (Guest) 17/09/2010 09:26
George Orr - that Dawkins "interview" is nonsense. Dawkins was duped by a bunch of creationists. His response to the actual question can be found here:

Repeating this sort of hoary old chestnut doesnt exactly help bridge the faith/science divide. It just widens it

Or maybe that is part of some peoples agenda?

Donald Boyd

ead John 20 again. The first person to see the resurrected Jesus is Mary Magdalene -

18Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.

Note: we are not told that they "believed" at that point.

Later, we read:

19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

Note: He showed them the wounds. It is at that point that we are told that they were overjoyed

So the 11 disciples may not have DEMANDED empirical evidence but Jesus supplied it to them anyway! Yet poor old Thomas gets into trouble for simply asking for that same evidence!

The verse: 29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

is almost irrelevant to the whole story. Mary Magdalene DID see him and believed. The disciples ALL saw the evidence and believed.

Jesus can only be talking about other people, presumably future generations.

George Orr 17/09/2010 11:42

The question is just a question that is of scientific interest because it goes to the nub of how information works. Are you deflecting as Richard Dawkins did?

With reference to my previous post I guess that should have read:

Duped, Speechless then Deflection!

He still talks a lot of rubbish :)

(page   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9)

NOTICE: - The 'Response' facility on some articles may be restricted to CT site members. In these circumstances comments/questions from non-site members should be sent to the Editor by e-mail: editor<atsign>

Christians Together in the Highlands and Islands > Archive > Around the Region > Inverness Area > Conference on Christianity and Science