MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

Science and God

March 5th, 2008 Visited 1852 times, 1 so far today

marbles

One of the interesting this to me in the whole Creation/Evolution argument is the belief that somehow science is the answer to everything and is the expert on everything. Science, it seems, can tell you both if there’s a God and what happened throughout time, and it should never be questioned.

The strange thing is that this is exactly the opposite of what science is all about.

As any good high school student knows, the foundation of science rests on testable hypothesis. Science is trying to reproduce testable things. They make a prediction and then test to see whether their prediction comes true.

The problem with the supernatural is that outside it’s outside the realm of Science’s ability to test. God doesn’t like to be tested, and though He has occasionally done something to show His power, He’s not into doing something in a repeated fashion just to please scientists.

Now, scientists could stop right there and say that since God is Creator and Controller of all things, they need not explore the world or seek any other reason for how things happen. But God did give us the world to explore and to dominate.

The problem is when the scientist leaves the realm of how and enters the world of why.

You see, science cannot prove there is or is not a God, but seeks to explain things in rational, testable ways. When it tries to test the supernatural, or when it seeks to explain the historical it’s out of its realm.

Dating methods have been calibrated with known historical texts. Science has to continually refine theories to explain what is happening. When the meteorologist comes on the television to tell you that it will rain, snow or be sunny, we all know that they do a decent job, but they aren’t tremendously accurate unless it’s obvious.

So why do we trust these people that have a problem using tools to predict the future with exactly how things worked in the past? Why don’t we not go by what we wrote down about what happened last year, but use science to extrapolate what happened?

It doesn’t work that way. We need science to stay in its realm and let history and the supernatural stay in theirs.

Comments

6 Comments

RSS
  • Mrs. Brigham says on: March 5, 2008 at 9:53 am

     

    Very interesting post, Min. Such thoughts have been on my mind quite a bit lately.

    I do think to a certain extent science is an interesting way to explore and understand God’s Creation, and in many ways, scientific exploration can prove the existence of a Creator, though not in a more abstract way. Take a small grain of some kind, for example. When this little grain has been studied, we have learned about the important design of several parts that make up the grain, give it it’s life, and protect this life until the grain is ready to be planted & sprouted. As it this interesting design were not amazing enough, grains can grow in nearly every climate on earth, provide wonderful nutrition for humans and animals, and many grains can be dormant for many, many years and still sprout when planted. Although science will never focus of this, but how could such a perfect design come to be on it’s own? ;o)

    Also important to note is the fact that science not only attempts to muddle it’s waters with the supernatural and historical, but also the philosophical–Darwin’s theories would be an excellent example of this. His philosophies were expounded *before* scientific testing had been done, and as his theories spread throughout the thinking minds of his day, people began to look for proof of his theories. Scientists who seek to explore and prove Intelligent Design work in a similar way, and are starting from their philosophical/religious views, and likely worldview, rather than proper scientific method.

    Mrs. Brigham’s last blog post..Lessons From The Sandbox

  • MInTheGap says on: March 5, 2008 at 10:28 am

     

    You’re right, Mrs. Brigham. The “dirty little secret” of Evolution is that it’s not truly a science, but a worldview. It starts with the assumption that since it can’t test for a God there must not be one, and then seeks to prove its conclusion. Evolutionism won’t even explore the idea that there could be a God, since they believe Him to be untestable. And yet there are thousands that have a relationship with Him.

    In some ways it truly is sad, in that man has lost sight of God because of the beauty of the world in its order and design.

  • Musicguy says on: March 5, 2008 at 1:26 pm

     

    Awesome post. You’ve convinved me that God created the world in seven days, evolution is nonsense cause it conflicts with your Bible, and the earth is 6000 years old. I’m sold.

    It’s a shame that your don’t realize that belief in a Supreme Being and evolution can exist hand in hand. Your “all things are either black or white” worldview is much more limiting than that of the die-hard evolutionists.

    Musicguy’s last blog post..Stripper Scandal

  • MInTheGap says on: March 5, 2008 at 2:47 pm

     

    Funny that my post accomplished a purpose that it didn’t intend. Praise God!

  • Stephen Kingston says on: March 6, 2008 at 4:36 am

     

    I think you are right, Min, in what you say. But also I think that scientists know that questions of God’s existence or non existence are not in their realm. I don’t think an evolutionary biologist, for instance, is setting out to disprove God (with the notable exception of a few such as Dawkins – but it is clear when they do this, they move beyond their specialism to a position of ignorance, as is clear by the way that Dawkins misrepresents faith so as to build a straw man argument to demolish it!)

    I am friends with a Christian who is also a professor of Geology. To him there is no contradiction between faith and science, because he knows that whatever the mechanism – however the world was created and however old it is – God was at the bottom of it all.

    My uncle has a podcast where he speaks of his faith as a scientist. He points out that Christianity and Science are quite compatible for a number of reasons, and ultimately what he is doing is “thinking God’s thoughts after him” (A phrase he has borrowed from Kepler incidentally).

    But I would also say this cuts both ways. Science cannot prove or disprove God’s existence. So just as a scientist is wrong to attempt disproof through a means such as evolutionary theory, I believe “creation science” is also philosophically flawed because it attempts to use those same tools to prove God’s existence. Neither will do.

    Stephen

    Stephen Kingston’s last blog post..Happy Endings Spoof Foundation

  • AG says on: March 6, 2008 at 9:19 am

     

    Musicguy, evolution and your average supreme being can coexist. But Evolution and the story of creation found in Gensis can’t. You’ve got to alter one to fit the other.

    MIn, I agree and disagree with your post. Obviously, science can’t test the supernatural, so you’re very right in stating that we can’t expect science to tell us everything there is to know about the universe. However, I disagree with your statement that science, history, and the supernatural each need to stay in their own realm. These areas are not exclusive. God (supernatural) created a physical (science) realm with a timeline (history). It is possible to see Him while we study science, history, philosophy, sociology, etc.

    For instance, David speaks of God knitting us together in our mothers’ wombs. Did you know that the cell structure in bones looks like a knitted piece of fabric? I just think that’s cool!

    AG’s last blog post..Mary

MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

%d bloggers like this: