Many people suppose that Christianity and science are in
conflict. This is simply not true. Christianity teaches that both Scripture and
the created universe come from the mouth of God; that is, He speaks both into
existence. Or, as C. S. Lewis so
beautifully puts it, Aslan sings both into existence. Since both Scripture and creation come from
God’s mouth, conflict and contradiction between Christianity and science is
simply impossible. The obvious problem
is with human ignorance and misunderstanding of both. Let’s face it. We’re not too bright.
Historical Background
This battle goes back at least as far as Copernicus (ca.
1543) and the Church. At least part of
the debate was over the geocentricity versus the heliocentricity of the
universe. Today, most scientists
acknowledge that the point is moot. No
one knows the exact location of the absolute center of the universe. The choice of origins in any coordinate
system is entirely arbitrary. The best
choice makes the mathematical equations easier to handle. The worst choice results in hopeless
algebraic tangles. The different origins
and systems are simply relative to each other.
Consequently, most science textbooks discuss both Earth and Sun centered
models.
As far as astronomy is concerned, a Sun centered model
allows a discussion of the solar system as a mostly flat, elliptical
model. This discussion led to the
powerful discoveries of Kepler (ca. 1630), to a lesser extent of Newton (ca
1727), and of countless others. If we
had to transfer the mathematics of these elliptical models to an origin on
earth or to some distant start we would eventually achieve the same
results. However, the mathematical
models would become formidable, and very difficult to understand. Of course, we are confronted with the
absurdity that no one can stand in the center of the Sun to take measurements.
As far as everyday life is concerned, an Earth centered
model is a lot handier. It works fine
for building most of the things that man builds, and we can get a convenient
feel for what our calculations mean, just by looking around. We can see the sky and identify with the
ecliptic, the motion of the moon and stars, and otherwise cope with life. As far as an observer on Earth is concerned,
the Sun moves around the Earth. If we
lived on Mars or Venus, we would use a different description.
An illustration might help.
I can measure the corners of my house from each other or from an origin
in the yard. A simple measuring tape
will do the job with sufficient accuracy.
Alternatively, we can measure the corners of my house from Hong
Kong. The corners of the house do not
move, and we get the same result in theory.
However, the problem is now formidable: for we must cope with the great
distance, the geometry and curvature of the earth, weather conditions, and
other obstacles. The cost of our
measuring instruments has become insurmountable, so that we cannot practically
finish our task, and the mathematics is enough to confound anyone.
All measurements relate to the choice of origin and
coordinates. Two different measurement
systems relate to each other in practice.
No one knows the exact location of the center of the universe.
Our point is that, whenever anyone posits a contradiction
between Scripture and science, we are on dangerous ground: for the failure
always rests with man, and never with God.
It’s always a pain to try to argue with God, Who is perfect.
How Big is the Problem
Someone has observed that the extent of our knowledge is
like a circle of light surrounding an interior area of darkness and ignorance.[1] The greater our knowledge, the greater our
ignorance by the square: for nearly everyone knows that, the area of a circle
is equal to the square of the circumference divided by 4 pi, (or about
12.6). Actually, this is an enormous
understatement. Each new piece of
knowledge blows through the existing body of human knowledge creating new
combinations and permutations everywhere it touches. Our ignorance, it would appear, increases at
much more than the square, or even the cube of knowledge. It is completely possible that our ignorance
increases at the seventh, seventieth, seven-hundredth, or even greater power of
knowledge. It’s always a pain to try to
argue with God, Who knows everything.
Let’s face it. We humans ain’t
too bright.
The Problem of Motives
I wish that I were able to say that truth is the only
motivation in science. Alas, scientists
are just like other men: greed, avarice, reputation, power, influence, status,
etc. affect us all. I am not accusing
any scientist of fraud. But, isn’t it
strange, for example that the American egg board scientists find that eggs are
good for your health, while the American cholesterol board has evidence for the
opposite conclusion. That is a totally
fabricated example, but you get the point.
Follow the money trail.
Scientists are motivated by money.
For example, if a particular boss or politician wants certain specific
results, his advisors find a way to spin the story. Then all the scientists on that politician’s
payroll are trained to ape the new spin in public. The scientist is trained, and retrained until
he gets it right, is fired, quits in disgust, is demoted to insignificance, or
is otherwise marginalized. In all cases,
the science is reported in exact accord with the politician’s wishes, depending
of course on how much clout that politician has. Yes, scientists will lie under financial
duress. In the defense of such
scientists, many tire of arguing with fools over issues that they will certainly
loose anyway. They buckle just to to get
back to work and minimize the inevitable damage caused by the fool. Why argue with a fool anyway?
Follow the social prestige trail. Scientists are also motivated by their
reputation in the community. I will
never forget my anguish when the news was published that the Cuyahoga County
Coroner suppressed evidence in the Sam Sheppard trial. Sheppard’s conviction was overturned after
ten years in jail. The true-to-life
story was popularized in a variety of Fugitive episodes. However, the Cuyahoga County Coroner could
easily be considered the most prestigious scientist in and around Cleveland,
Ohio. Yes, scientists will lie if it
suits their reputation or ideological values.
In this case, Dr. Sheppard was an Osteopath, and was considered of low
and unscientific reputation by many physicians like the Cuyahoga County
Coroner.
Follow the jealousy trail.
I didn’t find it first, produces such unprofessional outrage, as you
wouldn’t believe. Dr. Taguchi has
advanced my understanding of statistics by no small amount. He and his colleagues have made considerable
impact in the industrial rebuilding of Japan.
He is a major reason why Japanese products dominate world markets today,
and why American products no longer dominate much of anything. I will never fathom the screams of jealous
rage coming from America’s so-called “scientists”[2]
claiming that Taguchi was unscientific.
The American automobile industry had dared to invite Taguchi to discuss
his techniques. Yes, scientists will lie
if they are jealous enough.
Follow the fame trail.
Another Cleveland outrage involves disputes over the discovery of Lucy,
but that’s too controversial, so I will pick on something more obvious. Anthropology is littered with cases of
outright fraud. To say that the bones
might represent different species is being too kind. The skull of an ape was matched to the jaw of
a pig and dubbed a sub-humanoid. In
another case, the evidence was buried under the floorboards of the
anthropologist’s house and was not discovered till his death. It takes a great deal of money to finance expeditions
and there is a great deal of pressure on researchers to produce spectacular
finds. Failure to do so may result in
loss of funds and fame for a museum, and possibly even bankruptcy. Will scientists fabricate evidence for the
sake of fame? Yes, if it will keep
people coming to their museum and making donations.
You may think these to be exceptional examples. But, anyone who works in the field of science
will tell you that these are the rule, rather than the exception. Scientists are often aggressive, highly
competitive people who will knock down any obstacle to make a discovery
first. Edison (ca. 1931) was such a ruthless
man. His endless races to the patent
office in his competition with Maxim (ca. 1916) usually ended in Maxim’s
defeat. There is one historic exception,
Maxim’s machine gun. Maxim eventually
moved to England in disgust. Yes,
scientists lie, cheat, and steal all the time.
Anything goes to win the race to the top.
The Problem with Error
Once an error, whether accidental or fraudulent, is
committed within the scientific community, and makes it through the strictest
of vetting processes, it becomes very difficult to detect. Scores of years may pass before the error is
discovered and corrected. Centuries may
pass before it is overthrown in public memory.
Indeed, it may persist to eternity in the form of urban legend and old
wives fables. This is no small
problem. It consumes billions and
billions of dollars to correct innocent scientific errors every year. The outright frauds are rarer, but can be
individually far more costly. Scientists
motivated by truth, lose a great deal of time culling out truth from error.
The Problem with Darwin
The jury is still out on Darwin. It is dishonest of me to comment until I’ve
finished reading, On
the Origin of Species. At this point, it appears that Darwin is
neither the Satan nor the Saint that he is made out to be. Some make a distinction between the
miraculous and the providential. Darwin
was trying to sort that out. This can be
a problem for those that see everything as miraculous.
The theory of Special Evolution is easily
demonstrated and not in much doubt by anyone.
Species do vary randomly within their bounds.
The theory of General Evolution is highly
controversial and speculative. There is
no scientific evidence whatsoever to support it.
Unfortunately, even pro-evolutionists and
anti-evolutionists confuse these two vastly differing theories. This makes rational discussion impossible. We end up talking past each other without
credible result or progress.
The Problem with Theologians
This is not about singling out and bashing
scientists or science. This is about
establishing a fair and level field of discussion based on truth. To be fair, we should devote equal time to
exposing the faults of theologians.
However, this is hardly necessary since the numerous scandals in the
daily news have already done that for us.
No one will question that theologians do lie, cheat, and steal. They fabricate evidence, and destroy it when
it suits them. The motives that drive
scientists and theologians are the same.
However, science is falsely assumed to be exclusively about truth, while
theology is not.
A Concluding Summary
Scripture and creation, the Church and science
are never in conflict. The same Lord
Jesus Christ invented, preserves, and sustains both in complete and perfect
agreement. The Church in heaven simply
does not err; incessant, full-orbed contact with our Creator prohibits that
from ever happening.
Today, we even understand that the debate
between the Church and Copernicus is moot; we simply cannot and do not know the
exact location of the absolute center of the universe.
Theologians and scientists, on the other hand,
are often in conflict. The main problem
is our ignorance. But, we have also both
been caught lying.
Given the instruments at our disposal, there
is no good reason to believe that either scientists or theologians differ from
the general populace in their motivation to or commission of acts of lying,
cheating, and stealing, evidence fabrication and suppression.
There is no real freedom of speech in either
the scientific or the theological community.
The main point is this. Examine every claim for yourself. Know your Bible and understand it. Familiarize yourself with mainstream scientific
trends. If you are not a subject matter expert,
make friends with honest folks who are.
Let nothing pass unexamined, uncontested. Learn what you must in your quest for truth.
We are striving to establish a level field of
truth for further discussion of controversial public issues. If you refuse to give either science or Scripture
a fair shot, we will be hopelessly lost and unable to resolve conflict. Worse yet, to the extent that you refuse to
enter into the quest for truth, you will be self-deceived, and we will be excessively
burdened without your assistance. The
truth will still be the truth, but we may both miss it. If in doubt, check it out.
No comments:
Post a Comment