How does science differ from the creation of our world?

Answer 1

If you are referring to the Big Bang theory versus creationism in The Bible then the views are very different.

The short and sweet answer is this...

Science bases its findings on things observed and tested.

Creationism is based on theology.

theology :

1. The study of the nature of God and religious belief.
2. Religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed: "Christian theology

Sometimes theology and science cross paths and the results are then set for interpretation. But when a scientist publish a paper , they show how they got their answers and is then up to the scientific community to test these findings and see how accurate the findings were/ are.

Case in point a Catholic Priest was the first to suggest the Big Bang.

Georges Lemaître, was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He made one of the greatest discoveries of all time. He not Edwin Hubble ,discovered the Big Bang. 2 years before Edwin Hubble published his papers on the Expanding Universe.

The Catholic church also agree's with the Theory of Evolution because of the science findings. The only difference they have on it is the human soul which they say can not be explained through science.

B:Most scientists believe that evolution is able to adequately explain all the biological differences in nature.

Indeed, current majority scientific theories for the foundation of the universe do not formally require an act of creation, or a creator, even though there is a logical gap in these theories that would be well filled by a creator (e.g. how was the big bang started?).

For most scientists, adding a creator into the theory would not be consistent with the scientific method they have adopted, at least until there was some way to positively demonstrate that there was a creator.

Since it is thought that it is not possible to prove scientifically that there is a creator, or is not a creator, there are two reasonable courses of action, either:

1. To assume that there is no god or creator, and to work on this assumption when developing one's theories; or
2. To assume that there is a god who is the creator, and to work on this assumption when developing one's theories.

The first course of action is open to both theists (those who believe there is a god) and non-theists, but the second is only open to theists. Since the widespread acceptance of the Big Bang theory, it is possible for both "sides" to approach the evidence in similar ways, although differences in the way the evidence is interpreted will remain.

Answer 2

I believe that most scientists work on the assumption that whether or not there is a creator is not relevant to their inquiries. They develop theories that best fit the evidence they find, and leave it to theologians to determine whether their findings can be harmonised with religious beliefs.

Theologians worked on a naive understanding of the creation of the world until finally confronted with irrefutable scientific proof that those understandings were wrong. Many theologians are now scrambling to catch up with science, while others insist that the world really was created in just six days or just 6000 years ago, or even both. Others acknowledge the absurdity of these beliefs but hold to the biblical accounts and say that the biblical days were of indeterminate length.

One of the concepts developed by some theologians to resolve the contradictions between science and biblical creation is Intelligent Design, a modified version of Creation Science, which in turn is a later form of Creationism. However, these are no more than theology, and Creation Science is not science in spite of the name used.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation