Featured Post

Evangelical Atheists

My most recent posts have hit Evangelical Christianity pretty hard. While I certainly believe that my observations were warranted by the fac...

Thursday, February 13, 2014

God's role in creation: Part III - Science

Now that we've looked at myth and revelation, we are ready to take a look at the scientific aspect of creation.
It is unfortunate that many Christians see a conflict between science and their faith. Indeed, many Christians are hostile to science and reject much of what that discipline has to teach us about our world. However, if we take a closer look, I believe any objective person will see that such a conflict is unnecessay. I see no reason that a person of faith should reject any mainstream science or resist any type of ethical research to learn more.
After all, what part of the scientific method violates Scripture in any way? The Scientific Method: 1) Observe and describe it [Why did God give us five senses?], 2) Formulate a hypothesis to explain it [Isn't meditation encouraged in Scripture?], 3) Make predictions based on the hypothesis [Aren't we encouraged throughout Scripture to look to the future?], 4) Testing those predictions [Isn't it natural to do this?]
How does the Big Bang Theory take anything away from God as Creator? Why couldn't God have used a Big Bang to bring the physical universe into existence? For that matter, why couldn't God have used "Inflation" to get things started? I don't see anything in Scripture that prohibits God from using such devices in the process of creation.
What about Evolution? Why is that such a dirty word to many Christians? The Theory of Evolution with its reliance on the fossil record, time and genetics seems very plausible as an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. Who's to say that God didn't use Natural Selection to contribute to that diversity? What does Evolution take away from God being the source of life?
Life had to come from somewhere - even an atheistic scientist would acknowledge this (although he/she might say that it arose from simple organic compounds). It's interesting to note here that the Bible also teaches Abiogenesis (And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground - Genesis 2:7)
Q: Where did the simple organic compounds come from? A: From the elements created in the Big Bang forming into molecules Q: What caused the Big Bang? A: Inflation Q: Where did the small particle of super concentrated stuff come from that gave rise to Inflation? Q: Where did God come from? A: I guess scientists and relgionists are equal here - neither one of them has an answer for these last two questions!
Hence, how can any scientist claim a logical advantage over a theist in this debate about origins? In fact, I would say that logic favors the theist. The fact that we are self-aware and have the ability to reason, imagine and create points to a Creator.
The brilliant physicist Max Tegmark has argued for a Mathematical universe. I say an equation demands a mathematician. A building demands an artichect. A sculpture demands a sculptor. A machine demands a mechanical engineer. A poem demans a poet. A painting demands a painter.
What does the greatest scientist of all time have to fear from scientific research? I say NOTHING - BRING IT ON! Why would God's children be afraid to ask questions and explore? Why wouldn't we be willing to learn whatever science can teach us about the world we live in?

No comments:

Post a Comment