Image Hosted by

Saturday, January 22, 2005

If A, Then B...

The question in the first place is, "Do Faith and Science need each other?" In this case, the answer is no...almost. No understanding of science is required to have faith. However, to believe what science says, you must have faith - in science. That doesn't exclude any other faith, but the problem has arisen because many feel it does.

The short part is how faith uses science. While it is not necessary to know anything scientific to know Christ died for our sins, a knowledge of science does two things - increases our awareness of God and helps to discuss our faith with others who have some understanding of science. Discovering laws of the universe and the incredibly complex and ordered characteristics of our world demonstrate a system of explicit order - not chaos and random changes. Knowing the composition and function of all of the visual system, which would not work if it were missing a single element, demonstrates that these systems had to be ordered by someone! It is why Paul, in his letter to the Romans, wrote:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

HAC's previously mentioned series on logic, evolution, and science showed this - that when the scientific principles are enforced, we are left to see that science has not validated evolution - at least in the macro, global, origins of life sense. The contention about evolution is not about the scientifically demonstrable part - that species adapt to their environment. It is that, leaving out some details (that are not terribly important, mind you) that life came from nothing, and that men, trees, bacteria, fish, birds, reptiles, etc all came from the same thing. The elephant in the room is the missing transitional forms. Oh, I know you can find textbooks that show a line of 'progression' of creatures that have some similarities to each other. However, the enormous number of random mutations necessary to achieve the number of CORRECT mutation to go from simply Australopithecus ("Lucy") to human are staggering...never mind the number to go from nothing to human. These transitional forms, which should have only one or two slight variations from another known find, would be numerous. In fact, they do not exist. I'll talk more about "Lucy" in an additional post.

So, where faith is declared as science is this: It is not helpful to say that 'Things fall when we drop them because God made the world that way. Therefore we take God temporarily out of the equation in order to understand the working details of gravity - but knowing that 32 ft/s^2 is the acceleration of gravity on earth at sea level does not mean that God did not make it that way. But, starting with the assumption that God cannot effect the universe, we have to find ways to explain that things have happened, and hence, 'prove' that it happened without Him. Thus, you are forced into a faith of atheism. Is it truly any less a leap of faith to believe that mutations in the range of 1x10^223 perfectly worked out to make humans, with no plan or design, when there is not even 1% of the evidence necessary to show that that actually happened?

That is faith, not science. While it is your call to say what you believe, call it what it is.


Post a Comment

<< Home