 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
11.22.2005
science v. theology
I am frustrated, sad, and dissappointed.
why? Because people are determined to keep science and theology separate. Or rather, Science and religion. The typical belief is that science deals with the real world and facts, and religion is faith and spirituality.
To separate them in that way is to say that religion is a false belief that has no truth. That may not be what people mean, but that is what they are saying. And what, it appears, most people believe.
People think that there can't be any room for God in science. It should be the exact opposite. People should be finding evidence of God all over science! And they are. They just try to explain it away.
(before i go any further, i just want to establish that when I say "God" I mean the Christian God, the Heavenly Father, creator of the universe, Lord of Heaven and Earth, etc. i am not just referring to a generic god-type being. this is an important distinction, and i am making it clear because this has to do with the validity of calling "truth" the very God that i have faith in. i believe that the Bible is truth. i believe that YHWH is God. and i believe that He has written His name all over creation for us to find...)
The point is this: If science shows us truth, and we believe our faith to be true, then they have to be complimentary. If they are not, then one of them is false.
If we claim anything as truth, then it is either true, or we are wrong. (Duh.) But not everyone likes to see it that way. We talk about what's true for you is not necessarily true for me... That isn't truth then. Truth, by definition is absolute. If you make a statement and claim it is true, for you to be right, it needs to be true all the time, or the statement needs revision.
example: I say 2+2=4. You say, that's true. If you then say, 2+2=5, that can't be true. You may claim it, but it can't be true, 2+2 is not 5, it's 4.
Ok, so you knew that already, but think about what I was saying before and apply the example. If I claim faith in God, and I believe that it is true that He created the Earth and performed miracles and is involved in everyday life, then I am claiming that as truth. If that is true, then God is real. If God is real, and not just a figment of my imagination, then He must have influence over the real world. If God has influence over the real world, then science -- which is based on observation of principles and occurrences in the real world -- should show evidence of God's presence.
There are a billion things in nature that we have found that show evidence of a creator, of something intelligent having designed things the way they are. Yet, the tendency is to try and explain it through random occurrence and natural selection (evolution), rather than allow for the possibility that something is the way it is because God made it that way.
Further along that point, at the extremes of science, we have come to walls in what we can explain through "natural" means. In biochemistry, scientists have discovered workings of cells that are so complex and specific in their function that there is no way they can have naturally occurred. They must have been made that way, because missing any one part of the little "cell machines" would cause it to stop working. In astrophysics, science has hit walls at the big bang theory and the rules governing our universe and everything in it. The big bang theory is widely accepted, but it still doesn't account for what caused the big bang. (God?). Our universe is held together by the laws of physics. The amount of pull caused by gravity (generally noted by the constant G in physics), the relationship between electrons in atoms, the ratio of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, and every other physical force we have a way of measuring are precise, exact settings allowing for life on Earth. If any one of these were just a tiny bit off, life could not exist. The exact, specific settings of these forces scream about a master designer setting things in their right places (God).
There are lots of naturalistic theories about how these things came to be, but none of them offer a real explanation. Most are just attempts at denying the quite obvious, and rational, answer: God built this place, our universe. And He created life the way it is. I won't go into the details here, I am just stating my point that we have to start accepting that God is an answer for many puzzles in science and life. He is not just something to make you feel better about stuff.
If you believe that your faith in God is truth, then you have to believe that there will be evidence of that in science. Or one of them will be proven wrong.
(note: i am not proofing or redrafting this argument, so if things are jumbled, incomplete, or confused, please comment or email me and I will explain further. If your issue is with some of the information I alluded to, try the following books:
Darwin's Black Box, by M. Behe
Science and Evidence for Design, by M. Behe, W.A. Dembski, S.C. Meyer, the Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute, Vol. 9) ¶ 15:50 1 Comments
why? Because people are determined to keep science and theology separate. Or rather, Science and religion. The typical belief is that science deals with the real world and facts, and religion is faith and spirituality.
To separate them in that way is to say that religion is a false belief that has no truth. That may not be what people mean, but that is what they are saying. And what, it appears, most people believe.
People think that there can't be any room for God in science. It should be the exact opposite. People should be finding evidence of God all over science! And they are. They just try to explain it away.
(before i go any further, i just want to establish that when I say "God" I mean the Christian God, the Heavenly Father, creator of the universe, Lord of Heaven and Earth, etc. i am not just referring to a generic god-type being. this is an important distinction, and i am making it clear because this has to do with the validity of calling "truth" the very God that i have faith in. i believe that the Bible is truth. i believe that YHWH is God. and i believe that He has written His name all over creation for us to find...)
The point is this: If science shows us truth, and we believe our faith to be true, then they have to be complimentary. If they are not, then one of them is false.
If we claim anything as truth, then it is either true, or we are wrong. (Duh.) But not everyone likes to see it that way. We talk about what's true for you is not necessarily true for me... That isn't truth then. Truth, by definition is absolute. If you make a statement and claim it is true, for you to be right, it needs to be true all the time, or the statement needs revision.
example: I say 2+2=4. You say, that's true. If you then say, 2+2=5, that can't be true. You may claim it, but it can't be true, 2+2 is not 5, it's 4.
Ok, so you knew that already, but think about what I was saying before and apply the example. If I claim faith in God, and I believe that it is true that He created the Earth and performed miracles and is involved in everyday life, then I am claiming that as truth. If that is true, then God is real. If God is real, and not just a figment of my imagination, then He must have influence over the real world. If God has influence over the real world, then science -- which is based on observation of principles and occurrences in the real world -- should show evidence of God's presence.
There are a billion things in nature that we have found that show evidence of a creator, of something intelligent having designed things the way they are. Yet, the tendency is to try and explain it through random occurrence and natural selection (evolution), rather than allow for the possibility that something is the way it is because God made it that way.
Further along that point, at the extremes of science, we have come to walls in what we can explain through "natural" means. In biochemistry, scientists have discovered workings of cells that are so complex and specific in their function that there is no way they can have naturally occurred. They must have been made that way, because missing any one part of the little "cell machines" would cause it to stop working. In astrophysics, science has hit walls at the big bang theory and the rules governing our universe and everything in it. The big bang theory is widely accepted, but it still doesn't account for what caused the big bang. (God?). Our universe is held together by the laws of physics. The amount of pull caused by gravity (generally noted by the constant G in physics), the relationship between electrons in atoms, the ratio of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, and every other physical force we have a way of measuring are precise, exact settings allowing for life on Earth. If any one of these were just a tiny bit off, life could not exist. The exact, specific settings of these forces scream about a master designer setting things in their right places (God).
There are lots of naturalistic theories about how these things came to be, but none of them offer a real explanation. Most are just attempts at denying the quite obvious, and rational, answer: God built this place, our universe. And He created life the way it is. I won't go into the details here, I am just stating my point that we have to start accepting that God is an answer for many puzzles in science and life. He is not just something to make you feel better about stuff.
If you believe that your faith in God is truth, then you have to believe that there will be evidence of that in science. Or one of them will be proven wrong.
(note: i am not proofing or redrafting this argument, so if things are jumbled, incomplete, or confused, please comment or email me and I will explain further. If your issue is with some of the information I alluded to, try the following books:
Darwin's Black Box, by M. Behe
Science and Evidence for Design, by M. Behe, W.A. Dembski, S.C. Meyer, the Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute, Vol. 9) ¶ 15:50 1 Comments
