home    about me    weblog    reviews    links    

Science vs. Religion

Looking through Christian history there is a panoply of Christian artists, scientists and philosphers. It's safe to say that modern society was grown and shaped through Christianity. Why is it, then, that some scientists feel the need to debunk religion and to tag Christians as "deluded"? More importantly, why is it that some people are allowed to present personal vendettas under the guise of science? This is akin to the time of the inquisitions where the desire for power and greed corrupted the church (at least some members of it) and drove them to perform horrible deeds against humanity.

In Schools

Science is wonderful. It's a toolbox that we open and use to determine what makes us and our universe around us tick.

Religion is wonderful. It's a toolbox that we open and use to determine our relationship with God and one another, and what those relationships should be.

While some science is analytical and geared toward recording fact and detail regarding a process or an object, much of what is taught in school is THEORETICAL. This means it is not proven, and while we THINK we have evidence to support some of it, we don't KNOW the truth. Yet teachers teach it to students as if it is fact, and every decade our science books are rewritten to support the latest theories.

The Universe

Can we all just agree that the universe is not eternal?

I recently read an excellent article where a prominent stellar physicist exclaimed that (paraphrasing) "while we see the results of star formation and have a basic idea of how it occurs, we still do not fully understand it and, if you analyze our understanding of the process, you will see that there are many pieces of the puzzle that do not fit." He went on to say that as far as we (scientists) can tell, there are many forces that should work AGAINST the formation of stars, and we don't understand the entire process, how those forces are negated.

Why is this excellent? Because he is a scientist who, while working on a theory, does not portray it as fact. He understands that he does NOT know everything, even regarding something that seems so obvious to us through observation, yet does not make complete sense when the "numbers" come into play. It is honest science.

Moving on to more acerbic thoughts (I know, and I apologize in advance)...

Science teaches that a "big bang" (or some critical event) occured that caused our universe to jump into existence rather violently. This is widely accepted (tho' there are alternative theories). I would like to pause for a moment to mention that this theory was first posited by a Catholic Priest who was also a scientist and was REJECTED by Einstein. He came to these conclusions through whatever observational tools were available to him some 60 or 70 or so years ago which were based on Einstein's own ideas. But to get back on topic, this big bang was supposed to be a natural event and what has been taught in schools for decades is that some sort of singularity-like-thing simply couldn't contain itself any longer and exploded.

Another aside. Isn't it funny how everytime science thinks it has figured out some aspect of our universe it, not unlike the elusive super-sub-atomic particles that make up our most minute atomic components, it changes? How there is always something else "behind the curtain" orchestrating the bits and pieces?

Anyway, back to the universe. Some of the discrepancies involve the size of our universe, the non-uniformity of it, and the total mass of it. There are explanations to be sure, based on the ever changing theories of what matter and energy really are. It's akin to building your house on shifting sand instead of solid rock. This is fine, because science is about proving theories and some theories are just not possible to prove with our current technology and understanding. It IS possible that they MIGHT be proven at some point in the future. Isn't it?

Can the observable universe ever be used to explain the unobservable? Can we prove that there are 11 dimensions and that quarks can change their very nature simply because one tries to observe them? Can we prove that the universe was once a singularity or that (a newer theory) it was the collision of two other universes (their dimensional planes slapped together to spawn a new universe)? Moreover, can we TEACH these as FACT yet still tear apart the concept of intelligent design?

Of course we can. People can do whatever they please and whoever has the ear or heart of the public wins. It does not mean it is right, or true. It is just the way it is.

I choose to believe in God, the creator. I choose to believe that life is not an accident. I choose to believe this universe is not an accident. And the funny thing is, I can't be proven wrong; and the opposite view cannot be proven right. Yet somehow that makes ME deluded.


There is ample evidence that animals adapt and change over time in small ways (micro-evolution). I do question the idea that life came from nothing, was "self-created" so-to-speak.

Some scientists will say that life is the result of molecules bumping together to form more complex molecules that over time came to somehow depend on, or manipulate OTHER complex molecules until at some point proteins and catalytic engines formed various complex, co-existence machines (which could replicate themselves), which mated to OTHER complex machines to form little societies of interacting chemicals, proteins and machines. Someone once calculated the chance of this happening as being larger than the number of atoms in the universe.

While our schools are eager to teach this as fact, our scientists who have great technology at their disposal have still been unable to replicate this process. They HAVE been able to whip up the simple molecules that would be necessary to build life (which, by the way, stars are already able to do), but not the more complex ones, and certainly not protein chains that can self-replicate (with the assistance of other molecules). This is NOT science but fanciful conjecture.

Furthermore, another issue that has been difficult to explain is the Cambrian explosion. Darwin himself was bothered by this but he believed that in time, science would figure out this conundrum. But it hasn't. Theories have been posited to try and explain it (take punctuated evolution for example that relies on sudden, and rather drastic mutation that the host somehow survives versus the typically slow pace of random mutation).

Scientists can be quoted as saying "the fossils just haven't been found yet." But we have access to the strata where we would expect to see complex life, just before the explosion, and what we find are mostly very simple, but SOME more complex forms that do not even appear to be related to the explosion that gave us all current forms of life. Not only can scientists not explain the explosion, they cannot explain the life that preceded it, nor why after billions of years at the single cell stage, sudden complex, multi-cellular creatures appeared without any evidence of complex forms developing from simpler forms over the time that should be necessary for such mutation and aggregation to develop, if that is even possible at all.

When one considers that individual cells are already incredibly complex machines with organelles (components that perform specific functions that once had to be independent) and that they had to give up their independence and take on specific roles for the good of a larger conglomerate of cells (all each taking up different functions) AND be able to somehow develop a method of recreating this conglomeration of cells that have different functions, one can quickly see how unlikely this is. Statistically speaking, the chances of this all just happening over time is astronomical. Impossible really. Yet here we are. And most of this change occurred within a time period that we cannot differentiate within the fossil record because the period of time was so short.