Science Vs. God – an alternative view

Science and God are two subjects that are rarely used in conjunction with each other. In fact; in most cases when these two subjects are plotted against each other it is in an attempt to illustrate how they conflict. Many religious scholars and followers argue that science can’t be correct on subjects like evolution. Alternately, many scientists and atheists argue that religious documents like the Holy Bible can’t be correct, and use concepts like evolution in an attempt to disprove them. My belief is different than either of those positions. I believe that science can actually support the concept of a supreme being that intentionally created the earth and all that inhabits it, and that denying such possibility could stifle meaningful debate on the subject of God’s existence.

One of the main things that scientific research has shown us is that the world around us is full of patterns and complex processes. This can be observed in anything from a water molecule to human DNA. The patterns are reoccurring, and the processes all work perfectly together to perform very specific tasks. I look at all of this complexity and I see intelligent design, not chaos. In fact, I am often baffled that a scientist could be exposed to all of this data and still propose that the earth and everything on it was unquestionably one big happy accident – started by a collision of floating rocks. Then again, who is to say that God didn’t get the creation process rolling by smashing a couple of rocks together himself? Of course, some scientists attempt to explain all of this complexity with intricate theories and assertions, but at some point they start seeming like the ones having to rely on faith. Meanwhile, believers in God, an afterlife, and those accepting of the unproven are ironically hailed as “closed-minded”.

What are the chances an accident authored the pollination process, birth, or the physical and mental development of a human being? Does our blood clot as a random part of this chaos, or was it designed that way so we don’t bleed to death every time we receive a little cut? Is it more likely that humanities amazing capacity for love and hatred, beauty and ugliness, art and destruction, are random electrical responses with no deeper meaning or evidence of some greater outer struggle between positive and negative forces? If they are meaningless and random, is there truly any reason to practice what is considered good ethics or morality? Could we really condemn a man like Jeffery Dahmer as much as we have if we all resided to the idea that there is no creator, and therefore no deeper set of universally moral standards?

I believe that the Christian bible’s recalling of the creation of the world is compatible with the scientific view on evolution that took place over a long period of time. I am not implying that this view on evolution is irrefutably how things happened – I was not there after all – I wish only to assert that it’s possible the two set of beliefs can work together. In the first chapter of the Holy Bible (Genesis), it is explained that on sequential days God created several things including earth, the beasts of the earth, and man. I do not believe these days to be literal 24 hour periods. I do believe these verses were intended to illustrate the sequential order that things were created, and to establish that they were, indeed, created by God. Genesis does not elaborate on “how” they were created. It does not say that God snapped his fingers or twinkled his nose and after a poof of light the animals or humans appeared. Is it not possible that God used a creation processes which left behind evidence of the patterns and timeliness that science has uncovered? I believe that God could have taken thousands of years to create man and the earth as we know it today – especially when you consider that our idea of time is unlikely something that a deity would be affected by. Second Peter 3:8 states ‘A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.’ This verse is not being used in the context of the creation of the world but it does illustrate that the God of the bible is not constrained to our seven days a week 24 hours a day calendar. Why would he be?

As I think more about these concepts I am reminded of people like Josh McDowell; an outspoken agnostic in college who decided to prepare a paper examining the historical evidence of Christianity in an effort to disprove the religion. Josh became a Christian during his research for the paper. Instead of finding evidence against the beliefs of Christianity, he continually uncovered evidence that supported them. Josh is now one of the leading voices of Christianity.

Like Josh McDowell, I too took my first real steps toward God because I believed the evidence supported his existence. There then came beyond that, of course, an incredible spiritual relationship with God that transcends any ‘evidence’ that can be seen, touched, or done justice by a paragraph in a blog – read by someone who hasn’t experienced it yet. However, even without taking into account that relationship, I believe the argument for God’s existence would be strengthened if believers accepted the possibility that scientific evidence can actually support their beliefs, not just be used as a tool to tear those beliefs apart.

I know that it is unlikely science alone will ever fully affirm creation or give undisputable evidence of God – as spiritual concepts cannot be wholly explained or understood by worldly wisdom. I also know, just as it is written in the scriptures, that in the end every knee shall bow, every eye shall see, and every tongue will confess – but I’m convinced that there is more we can be doing to reveal the truth of God’s existence to the world before that glorious day. Opening our minds and hearts to thinking in new ways – assuming they don’t directly conflict with scripture – is one step towards that realization.

Advertisement

~ by cterhaar on May 1, 2010.