Can One Believe in Science and God? - Part 2

By Tom Rose

Some scientists realize there are serious intellectual problems with macro-evolution, but still they do not want to accept Creation, perhaps because in accepting Creation they would have to deal with The Creator. On the other hand, if a scientist truly believes in God, doesn’t it seem illogical for him/her to accept what the Bible teaches about sin and salvation and reject what it says about Creation? Such are some of the dilemmas facing each individual as he/she decides on how the world and all its multiple life forms came into existence .

In addition, these individuals must also account for the complexity of man if he is not a special creation. Today, science affirms that man has the largest of all brains (to compensate for duller senses compared to other animals), is able to converse and communicate with true speech, can learn multiple languages, achieves based on the learning of his ancestors, and lives a reasonably lengthy life-span yet has the longest period of parental dependence (18-25 yrs.). These traits, common to all mankind, leave a huge gap between man and other animals in the primate family.  Also, those who believe in the Bible and macro-evolution will have to explain the origin of man’s soul, his desire for worship, and a belief in the hereafter.  Taken side by side, creation and macro-evolution are both belief systems.  Neither creation nor evolution is truly a scientific theory, because neither can be proved nor disproved by the evidence available.  In truth, both positions require faith: one theistic, the other atheistic or materialistic.   

If one goes outside on a clear dark night and glances up into the starlit skies, what do they see?  Order and beauty.  If one looks into the regions of smaller and smaller objects, what is seen there?  Order and beauty.  Whether in the far reaches of space or in the sub-atomic world of matter, scientists will forever be impressed with the detail, intricacy and energy that comes into their fieId of view. Moreover, throughout history man has been curious about his origin along with other elements in the natural world.  Even Job asked, “Has the rain a father?  Who has begotten the drops of dew?” (Job 38:28)

Ladies, did you ever see a beautiful afghan or quilt and fail to ask: who made it, where did you get the pattern, how long did it take?  Gentlemen, did you ever gaze on a refurbished antique automobile and fail to ask: where was it manufactured, how did you find all the parts, can you start it up?  Why don’t we ask the same questions when we look through a telescope or a microscope?  I suggest that modern culture separates out a belief in God from our scientific discoveries.  Thus, I worry as much about the atheist who denies the existence of God, as the Christian who works so hard in his attempt to control his destiny that he fails to truly need and trust God.

In conclusion, scientific knowledge should increase our faith and belief in God because the more we understand about the universe and how it works, the more we should be convinced that the universe could not have "just happened" by chance.  “For by Him (Christ) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.  All things were created through Him and for Him.” (Col. 1:16)

Therefore, for those who believe in God, science becomes the means by which we can explain how the universe was created and now functions.  Rather than using science to explain away God’s existence, one may view science, coupled with God’s Word, to point to a marvelously designed creation. One planned by an all-powerful Creator whose existence and etemal power “is before all things and in Him all things consist.” (Col. 1:17)

Can One Believe in Science and God? - Part 1

By Tom Rose

We live in an age in which people all but worship the word 'science.’  In essence, science enables us to explain and understand how the universe, and the world in which we live, works and operates.  Yet because of this knowledge many have come to believe that science has made a belief in God unnecessary or obsolete.  Some think that one no longer needs to believe that God is behind the origin of life since many of its operations can be understood and explained by modern scientific inquiry and analysis.  Is such thinking valid?  What would you think if someone told you that airplanes did not have to be made by anyone, because we can understand and explain how they work and operate?

When one considers the topic of evolution, it is important to establish the meaning of several words.  Micro-evolution (also termed specialization) is easy to envision as a part of the natural world.  Varieties of flowers or domestic animals account for diversity within their kind.  For example, a breeder’s new rose creates a new species, but it is still a rose!  Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is a theory that all of the varieties of creatures we observe today developed by a gradual set of changes, over a very long time, from common ancestors.  Usually this theory includes the concept of life itself having developed from lifeless chemicals.  Micro-evolution is often mistakenly used as evidence for macro-evolution, but these are two vastly different concepts. There is no evidence that large changes above the “family” level (a taxonomy term) could occur or have ever occurred (e.g. the cat family with lions and tigers are distinct from the horse family with family with asses and zebras).

When Curt Sewel, a respected scientist, read The Genesis Flood, by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, he stated, “It made the entire Genesis account reasonable, in terms that were compatible with my knowledge of science .”  He then added, “I saw that the problem wasn’t with any kind of scientific measurement; the basic problem was the set of assumptions behind the theories.”  To illustrate, a foundation stone of modem science proclaims that everything in nature has always followed the laws of nature, and that these laws have always behaved in the same ways they do now.  This is known as the “Law of Uniformity.”  Implicit in this assumption, though seldom stated, is the belief that a supernatural event never took place.  Arguing that any such supernatural action, such as creation or a Noah flood, would have been a “singular event” that obviously could not be repeated in a scientific experiment, it must be placed outside the domain of science. In this way, the Genesis account is put aside as a non-scientific story, and is automatically ruled out of any scientific explanation.

(To Be Continued)