|
Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science Scientific Politics and Misconduct |
Religion and Science
Religion and science are in principle two separate entities and only conflict when one or the other or both are taken beyond their natural bounds. Typically this is done by advocates of extreme positions on one side or the other; usually by atheistic scientists making pronouncements unsupported by hard science.
There has been no attack on basic science findings or methods by a major religion in recent times. We believe that efforts to limit the misuses of science are not fundamentally attacks on the basic science itself but rather on the consequences of that science on society. (This is different from some small segments of religion who are questioning the findings of thermodynamics based on a misunderstanding of the science, but they are not at all representative of the vast majority of the religious community. In fact the most basic calculations in regards to the thermodynamics of the state of the origin of the universe support the need for a Creator.)
Science does not directly address any specific religion. Science also does not directly address God, but science can inform us about the general nature of God (consistent with harmony, order, etc.) Science generally only gives us operational knowledge (how things interact, physical relationships, etc.) As science develops a deeper understanding of reality, it is just pointing more and more to the probable need for a Creator.
Religion is essentially beliefs about that which is beyond science and which underpins reality and science (the source of material reality and the laws of science) but which is not measurable in the laboratory. A basic belief in God does not in any conflict with the hard facts or philosophy of science.
The general understanding in society is that the two areas of religion and science are separate in that science deals with physical phenomena and religion deals with things which are beyond the purview of tests, theories, and mathematics. If each sticks strictly to these definitions, there would be no conflict. How Can we Tell the Science from Religion?
While there is no inherent conflict between a belief in God and hard/factual science, there is a conflict with the unfounded atheistic interpretations of science which are very different from the factual science itself. This website link is an example of what we believe would be good for theologians to understand about science and evolution.
Most present day conflict is between atheists and those who have faith and others who object to the atheistic and profit motivated misuse of supposed "science". One key example of the misuse of "science" is when extreme Darwinian evolutionists make inappropriate statements such as that the there is no evidence for design in the universe or in life or that science can explain everything. These atheistic motivated statements are not anything close to science facts but can be scientific sounding statements and are in reality only philosophical statement of the atheists personal beliefs. The truth is that there is strong evidence for design (and, therefore, probably a Designer) in the universe and no factual reason to believe that science can or ever will be able to explain away such design.
It is important to understand the true nature and limits of science.
In response to misuse of the term science, some religious scientists have responded by showing that to some degree science supports certain aspects of their faith that are consistent with actual science and even the deepest level of the laws of physics. Reference the book "The Science of God" (review at bottom of link page) by G. Schroder, PhD in physics from MIT. (This is also not a science book as such, but does show that trained scientists believe that science does not have all the answers to the basic questions of life.) On page 105, Mr. Schroeder quotes an atheist as saying "Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability." Mr. Schroeder does this in the book and makes a reasonable case for his theistic position/beliefs. Another good book with science references is; "The Case For A Creator" by L. Strobel.
While looking at religion thru the eyes of a scientists is valid and beneficial, it has it limits. The flip side is that liberal courts sometimes use cases where the use of science in defense of a theistic beliefs are carried too far (atheistic "expert" witnesses) and are an example of religion (atheism) going beyond its bounds. This results in bad rulings which support bad atheistic science-like claims.
Recently, we have found a supposed example of religion being misused against misunderstood science where the belief is that the science is infringing on the faith. There is an internet page which claims that a Christian group is trying to repeal the "second law of thermodynamics". If this is true, then it is based on a nearly total misunderstanding of what the "second law of thermodynamics" is. What the Christian group probably really wants to do is to stop atheists from claiming that the world is nothing but disorder and chaos. If they mean to do the latter, that is valid. Otherwise, they are making a very serious error in several ways.
The second laws of thermodynamics is not much more than instances such as the observation that if we drop objects and see them break but we do not see such broken objects reassemble them selves without outside input.
The second law of thermodynamics is really not a law made up by some scientist, it is just a general way of saying that without input from outside the system, systems tend to disordered states. This does not reflect negatively on God since God is essentially outside the universe and the initial state of the universe is to have had to be highly ordered to see all the order in the universe now. God is the source of the order.
It is appropriate, however, for believers in God to object to atheistic pronouncements based on simplistic and biased interpretations of the "second law of thermodynamics." There is in fact a very fundamental question about thermodynamics relating to God; namely, the very improbable thermodynamic characteristic (order) the universe had to have in the beginning. Science is in a position where it cannot and never will explain the order in the universe at its start.
In his book the emperor's new mind" Mr. Roger Penrose one of the leading physicists in the world, says; "in order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes".
Mr. R. Penrose, calculates a probability of 1 chance in 10 followed by 123 zeros that such conditions to create the universe would happen by chance without a creator. (Yes, Mr. Penrose refers to a creator in his book.) That is about one chance in 1000 million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million! It is the laws of thermodynamics on which such a calculation is based. The laws of thermodynamics actually point to the need for a Creator! This should be understood by people of faith who mistakenly believe that the second law of thermodynamics argues against their faith.
Science cannot explain a lot of things such as the origin of the universe. Even the great Einstein has recently been proven to be in error in recent discovery in laboratory tests. Einstein believed that the deepest law of physics (quantum mechanics) was at best incomplete because it implied faster than light signaling between correlated subatomic particles. Laboratory experiments (A. Aspect type of experiments) have proving instantaneous interconnection between correlated particles. New findings can always possibly prove even the greatest physicists wrong and especially true about our understanding of the deep laws of physics. Science has its uncertainties just like religion.
In the past, religion has tried to control science which is wrong, unfortunately, recently, atheistic scientists have tried to draw interpretations of scientific theories (not the scientific facts themselves) to support their atheistic positions which is even more dangerous to society.
While in general people of faith should probably not try to control what science is explored, atheist scientists will probably force people of faith to be much more active politically, in the schools, and in the courts. Link to discussion on "Can Religion withstand technology?"
Atheistic scientists go beyond the hard facts of science and mislead the public into believing that somehow science has proven something negative about God. In this case, as is beginning to happen, people of faith will sooner or later have to respond and assert influence on what science is funded by public money to prevent that money being misused for anti social purposes.
When atheistic scientists begin to play God themselves by proposing to clone humans, that also requires people of faith to speak out and act. Atheistic or unthinking scientists or businesses have begun mixing genes from different species and are risking the worlds health and food supply. Careless science has even already created a new virus.
Atheistic scientists must be made to realize that such misuse of science will eventually force a reaction from people of faith that will impact the public funding for science.
We believe that religion will be served by good/hard (as objective as possible) science and true science would be well served by people of faith who are reasonably informed about hard science and its limits.
Emerging Worldview: Science and Religion Working in Harmony
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith
The Language of God, A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Written by F.S. Collins, a noted scientist who was a major contributor on the human genome project. (Note; we do not agree with his defense of Darwinism beyond micro evolution, nor do we agree that much of the blame for the conflict between Darwinists and people of faith falls on those of faith. It is the atheistic unsupported pronouncements of Darwinists and not attacks on science by people of faith that is the source of the problem.)
Questions on Science and Religion
The Wisdom of Science: Its Relevance to Culture and Religion
The Outstanding Books in Theology and the Natural Sciences Prize (List of books of interest.)
One of World's Previous Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, based on scientific evidence.Science and Religion at a Crossroads: An Educational Perspective
Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?