The problem begins at the beginning. Not the Genesis "in the beginning," but at your starting point for science.
The Christian knows that the "heavens declare the handiwork of God," and as such is free to dissect the cosmos knowing that whatever he finds will merely bring greater glory to God for the astounding nature of His created universe. It doesn't matter if the scientist examines at the micro or nano level or if he taps into Hubble and tries to peek around the corner of adjacent galaxies. All will point to God. As such, the Christian is free to discover and figure things out knowing that the God who has revealed Himself truly (though not exhaustively) has also revealed Himself truly (though not exhaustively) in His creation.
Many scientists believe that science can only be carried out if you begin with nothing and then try to discover (interestingly, this is not a scientific position, but a philosophical one and not verifiable by science). If you begin with nothing, how then can you determine that anything within the cosmos is knowable or discernible? Again, their naturalistic position founders at the beginning because it is based largely upon philosophical positions and not "scientific" ones.
Another starting point for many scientists is that all of the natural universe must behave naturally and that there must exist a natural explanation for all things. The problem with that point is that if the evidence begins to point to a purposeful design, that conclusion cannot be accepted for a Designer lies outside the realm of the natural world.
What's wrong with that position? If at the outset of a problem you dismiss a possible solution, and if that possible solution turns out to be the actual solution, then the scientist can never come to the correct solution. He will continue to construct fables and cartoons to explain the results while ignoring the elephant in the test tube. It's as though he rips out his eyes and then attempts to discern the nature of a sunset.
So, should science and God coexist? It's a laughable, "OF COURSE!" As Ben Stein notes in the film, "If the evidence of science points us toward God, how exciting is that!" He states it not as a question but as an enthusiastic statement, much like, "Skydiving, how exciting is that!" I would contend that only the Christian or the one who makes room the possibility for an Intelligent Designer is free to follow where the evidence leads.
The Darwinian scientist must always be checking his results to make sure that nothing smacks of the supernatural, for if it did, he might discover the God who is there which would mean, too, that the scientist is a creature responsible to that creator. Hence the panicked pains to distort the evidence.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment