For the Sake of Science

Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk have a column stating that they are scientists and they believe in both God and evolution.

We are scientists, grateful for the freedom to earn Ph.D.s and become members of the scientific community. And we are religious believers, grateful for the freedom to celebrate our religion, without censorship. Like most scientists who believe in God, we find no contradiction between the scientific understanding of the world, and the belief that God created that world.

Most of the article is just an emphasis on this basic statement. I was hoping to get a substantial post out of this when I first saw it, but I’m scavenging here.

We are trained scientists who believe in God, but we also believe that science provides reliable information about nature. We don’t view evolution as sinister and atheistic. We think it is simply God’s way of creating. Yet we can still sleep soundly at night, with Bibles on our nightstands, resting atop the latest copy of Scientific American.

It isn’t surprising that they use “and” rather than “or” between sinister and atheistic. Christians love to associate atheism with all sorts of evil things. Don’t believe it.

Our belief that God creates through evolution is a satisfying claim uniting our faith and our science. This is good news.

This is only good news for those who have long realized that religion and science are at odds, but who wish to bring the two together, ignoring all the issues raised. For instance, how can one maintain that prayer can affect the natural world, yet then ignore the scientific studies which show that, no, that is not true. Or, alternatively, claim that science cannot measure the supposed effects of prayer. Of course it can! The claim is that X occurs in the natural world. If that’s the case, it is always subject to study using the scientific method. The natural world (i.e., reality) is science’s realm. Enter your fairy tales into it and you leave the safe haven of the supernatural, mythical world.

There is nothing satisfying about a claim uniting Christianity (or any religion) and science. One makes claims about the natural world without evidence while the other is predicated on the very idea that evidence is absolutely critical in determining the truth of anything, especially counter-intuitive or improbable claims. There are only two gods which can work with science: a hands-off deity and a god which only works through natural laws. The first is pretty harmless. The claim is simply that God X set the Universe in motion. That temporarily satisfies the first cause-question, though it quickly falls apart when one asks “Well, what created God X?”. The other god, the one that works purely through natural laws, is only superfluous. This one can have theology around it and thus can be quite dangerous. However, as far as science goes, its use is as good as me saying that fairies guided every particle into place at all times. There’s no evidence for my fantastic claim, but it doesn’t technically interfere with what science says. But, of course, a god which causes virgin births, turns water into wine, and floods the entire Earth is far from being compatible with science. Very, very far.

Huh, look at that. Turns out even the short dumb things the New Creationists say can generate a lot of rebuttal.

Filed under: Creationism | Tagged: Evolution, Faith and science, Karl Giberson, New Creationists, religion | Leave a comment »