{ Science Truth...Assume Nothing }

Book and Article Reviews

The Role of Doubt in Science

For High School Students

Science-Supported Essays

What is Science?

Science Limits

The Scientific Method

Fascinating Science

Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science

Basic Science Assumptions

Spotting Bad Reasoning

Science Myths & Models

Critical Thinking

Science Philosophy

Science Uncertainty

The Dangers of Science

Atheistic Bias in Schools

The Truth About DNA

Anti-Christian Bias

School Environment Pollution

Science and Democracy

Scientific Politics and Misconduct

In Defense of Science

Our Vision of Science

Summary of this website's Key Positions

Site Organization

Science and Faith:

People outside the science community often think that science is absolute in its knowledge or that science is replacing the need for faith in God. It would be difficult to find ideas much farther from the truth. The truth is that the hard facts of science (laboratory experiment based) do not conflict with a basic belief/faith in God. Science theories are, in fact also dependent on faith (of a different type than religious faith) and science is dependent on assumptions much more than most scientist would like to admit. This is especially true in the sciences relating to the origin of life, evolution of life, and the origin and fate of the universe.

Science experiments do not, in fact, result in absolute knowledge but only limited validation of theories in simple situations. Science is very good at operational information (how things operate/interrelate) but very poor at fundamental "why" questions.

These following views of science are not original with us. We recommend the book "Inventing Reality, Physics as Language" by B. Gregory. On page 181, Mr. Gregory says; "In the final analysis, physics is only indirectly about nature. Directly, it is talk about experimental arrangements and observations."

Science certainly cannot "test" God, and thus faith in God and the existence of God cannot be directly addressed by science. Faith in God (or unbelief) will always be part of any picture we (humans) try to paint of the totality of deep reality. The case for faith. Faith and Reason, Together Again; Who says it’s possible to believe in science and God? Scientists do.

Science just provides information (supposedly objective, but in fact often not), which allows science to make up theories or models. These theories/models are simply representations of the behavior of reality. When direct laboratory tests can be run, scientists can have a high degree of faith that the model/theory is a reasonably useful picture of reality for scientific test conditions somewhat like those of the previously experiment. When the scientific test conditions are made significantly different, the results may be very different that what the science theory predicts.

Science only gives a high degree of probability (low level of faith required) in predicting what the results of similar experiments will be. The history of science is full of experiments which proved the faith in a theory which was false. Science simply comes up with better theories (models) and moves on. Science gets a little closer to reality but never truly arrives at a full understanding which does not require faith to some degree.

Scientists came to face the limits of their models in very profound ways when Quantum physics was discovered. Quantum physics is about the most fundamental nature of matter and showed reality to be much different than any previous science model/theory has indicated and far different that what we would have guessed based on our day to day experiences or based on other basic science theories.

Based on the nature of Quantum Mechanics (now the most basic law of the science of physics) and Godel's theorem (the theory about the limits of even simple mathematics), it seems that reality involves uncertainty and therefore the basic need for some form of faith. This is probably a fundamental and irrefutable fact of reality and recent experiments indicate that it will probably always be the case even if Quantum Mechanics is replaced by a better theory. Certainly, based on Godel's mathematical theorem, it is doubtful that science can even in theory provide absolute answers to the simpler fundamental questions of reality.

Scientists are trying to come up with a theory of everything to supposedly answer all those fundamental questions. Even if science had a physics "theory of everything", we would still not even begin to know the answers to the most critical questions about our existence. As one of the top physicists in the world (Stephen Hawkings) has said "if we do discover a complete theory ------then we would know the mind of God". We believe even that statement is a gross overstatement, but it does shot that even this top physicists realizes that God will always need to be part of the answer to our basic questions. There is no scientific reason to doubt that God will always be part of the answer to our basic questions.

Reference the web site "The real issue" for comments on science, scientists, and faith by a professor of quantum chemistry. For the opinions of 20 Nobel prize winning scientists on God and science, refer to the book Cosmos Bios and Theos.

Twp more wonderful books for people of faith are; "The Fingerprint of God" by H. Ross, Ph.D. Physics and The Hidden Face of God, Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth" by G. Schroeder an MIT trained scientist. Mr. Schroeder does not mean to imply that science reveals the full truth about an infinite God, but science does point to a Creator who designed the universe with exquisite precision for life on earth. What Mr. Schroeder is saying is that "science, properly understood, provides positive reasons for faith"

The many scientists who do believe God certainly indicates that there is nothing in science which would argue against such faith. Actually, the opposite is true and even before it became known to science how complex life actually is, many great scientists still believed in God. Quotes from Famous Scientists More quotes from scientists. Scientists and Their Gods ( also known as Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? )

On the other hand, there are good reasons to believe that Darwinian dogma has caused and can still cause a great deal of evil. It is true that bad thinks have been done in the name of religion, but the truth is that those bad things are almost always in direct conflict with the true principles of the religion. In the case of Darwinism, on the other hand, the evil done follows the principles of Darwinism.

This writer believes that science is fundamentally incapable of giving much information about the deep truths of reality and certainly nothing about values. It has little to say relative to responsible behavior and virtually nothing about morals. This is true now and always will be true. Pronouncements by scientists about God or about moral issues are mostly if not entirely just an individual's viewpoint (not scientific at all) and should not be viewed as hard scientific facts, but merely opinions and ideas open to debate. The interpretations of science in this site also fall into the category of being open to debate.

A wide range of scientists, nevertheless, seem to be more and more entering into discussions about the creation of the universe, the nature of life and even the possible nature of and probability of the existence of God. That intersection needs to be understood and questioned by society at as deep a level as possible. The World's Greatest Creation Scientists.

Faith can of course be accompanied and supported by science and reason. Faith devoid of reason is likely to be at least to some extent open to major questions. In a recent book noted (though certainly controversial) world class physicists F. Tipler talks makes biblical references and integrates them with his thoughts about how he believes God could be working in the universe.

While we don't agree with Mr. Tiplers viewpoints, the point is that there needs to be a stronger intersection between science and faith. The course society takes cannot be safely left to science alone. Science may and does support faith in God in some ways, but cannot provide by itself, a moral and ethical direction for society.

Scientist s as individuals, however, can use their analytical training to reflect on their faith and deeper questions of existence, and from their analytical level offer some interesting and supportive insights into faith. There is a great deal of such support for a belief in God from a very significant number of distinguished scientists.

From the book: Cosmos Bios and Theos which questions 60 leading scientists including 20 Nobel prize winners; in the interview with Sir John Eccles, Nobel Prize winner with a Ph.D. in natural sciences, when questioned if he believed in a divine Creation said: “Yes I do. I have said that several times in my books. And this is a creation. You have to think of it as not just by a Creator who tosses off souls one after another. This is a loving Creator giving us all these wonderful gifts.”

From the same book: Interview with Professor Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. in mathematics: “nothing is more evident, more certain , than the existence or reality of God”. Again, these statements are not science and certainly not directly related to any proof of God. The statements just show that a number of highly trained leading scientists do believe in God.

In the September 1999 issue of the Scientific American magazine (a very reputable and worthwhile magazine) the discussed poll results showing that at least 40% of the general population of scientists believe in God. This is among a group of people who have been trained to think of explaining things without reference to God which makes such a high number quite remarkable. This is not surprising when one considers the bias starts in training scientists. In the October 1994 issue of Omni (a popular/public science magazine) there is an article titled "Science and Religion." This article is about a man who went on to receive a Ph.D. in physics despite being told by his professor; "he had the potential to be a first class scientist if only he could jettison his Christianity."

The student refused to do what was suggested and got his Ph.D. despite the professor. How many others, however, are pushed away from science or barred from top science positions where the direction of science is determined, just because they believe in God! No wonder polls show less than half of physicists believe in God. Students who do believe in God are pushed into other fields of endeavor.

The article in Scientific American goes on to state that among the leadership in scientific institutes, the belief in God is much lower. “Disbelief among NAS members responding to our survey exceeded 90 percent.” This is probably reflective of atheism at the highest levels in the major institutes of science which play a major role in what our youth are taught about a belief in God and science. Needless to say, the bias of those in charge of such science organizations will not favor students who believe in God or any science studies which could point towards and provide support for a belief in God.

The scientists we quote are on an intellectual par with other scientists in their training and work and still find faith and God compatible. Many other scientists could also be quoted to show a belief in God and that fact that they are in a 40% or so fairly large minority does not make their beliefs in contradiction with the truths of science.

It is also interesting to note that in the same article in Scientific American there is an admission: “evidence suggests that there is more personal religion among physicians, engineers and members of other technological occupations that involve applied science.” It seems that one possible explanation for that would be that the closer one comes to science in the real world, the more one is able to see the truth of reality as opposed to the mathematical models of theoretical science.

This writer believes that science will only appear to point away from God only when it is portrayed as providing absolute knowledge or when disagreements about supposed scientific proofs and the profound limitations of science are not brought to light.

One example of this case is with the study of evolution as it now taught in our schools. Usually such studies avoid mentioning the major arguments between reputable paleontologists and the large body of evidence indicating that Darwinian evolution may only be a fine tuning mechanism and not actually capable of creating true novelty in life.

Real science should have nothing to fear from bringing out all the facts. Unwillingness to expose the full truth to students and the public is usually an indication that dogma has replaced the best understanding of scientific truth.

On the dogmatic science side there are some hard-core Darwinian evolutionists who make statements implying that life is pure chance and essentially meaningless. This is essentially an atheistic position (outside of science) which is not based on any true science. Actually there is some scientific evidence showing a fundamental bias in the laws of the universe towards life and harmonious life at that. There is scientific interpretations of scientific findings which counter the atheistic position but which like the atheistic position is actually more philosophy than pure objective science.

This writer believes that it is especially important for people of any faith to view unbridled science and especially the claims of dogmatic evolutionists as a threat to their children. People of faith should advocate that macro evolution be taught as an unproven theory. There is a big difference between macro evolution propounding to explain the origin of new biological functions or completely new morphologies and which is not proven and micro evolution (which is a scientific fact but which is only proven to be a fine tuning mechanism which adjusts the lengths of beaks of birds or coloration and such) which is proven.

Science, faith, and God inevitably intersect where atheistically biased public school teachers interject their personal beliefs into the teaching of science.

It is interesting to note that referenced in the Seattle Times June 23, 2005 paper, a Journal of General Internal Medicine survey of doctors indicated that 76 percent believe in God. Isn't it interesting that those whole best understand the design of humans, in the majority believe in God.

Summary:

Science cannot give certain truth. Many but not all scientists recognize this. Sadly, many seem to have forgotten this. That forgetting of a basic fact leads to unfounded scientific arrogance.

Science tells us nothing about how to run a society from a moral standpoint and very little about how best to structure a society. There is a recognition by many scientists that there is a place and a need for God in our society. Those that are honest will be open to questioning science and open to society looking at the moral and societal effects of science. People of faith (and even those without faith) will be best served by insuring that science becomes the open forum of ideas it is supposed to be.

We believe control of dangerous or socially irresponsible science should not be done by cutting overall funding or imposing any religious belief on science. On the other hand, people of faith need to act to stop irresponsible or atheistic scientists pushing their personal beliefs from setting the research agendas as well.

Science should not and need not conflict with faith and a belief in God. We need to be very concerned when our schools are teaching science in a way which presents an apparent conflict to our children.

(As we note on our "Links" page, sites we reference that are Christian (even on this page addressing faith only about 50%, the other not espousing any religion) are highlighted in gray or yellow.) Most page links in this site are about 90% pure secular science (which still objectively points towards God, but which is not the same as espousing a religion based solely on personal faith.

The Role of Doubt in Science

Pierre Teilhard De Chardin ,Toward a Science Charged with Faith

We highly recommend the book; "The Case For A Creator" by L. Strobel. who by examining the evidence went from being an atheist to a Christian.

Reasons to Believe by H. Ross, Ph.D. Physics (Note; we do not agree with all of Dr. Ross's conclusions.)

Is science a threat or help to faith?

Science & Religion: Oil & Water?

Scientists and Belief in God

Blind faith in Science is just as bad as blind faith in Religion

Scientists and Their Gods, Henry F. Schaefer III, Ph.D. Chemistry

Ten Reasons for the Constructive Engagement of Science and Religion

Cab a scientist also be a Christian? (The answer is clearly yes.)

Do most astronomers believe in God based on the available scientific evidence?