Monday, August 13, 2012

Christianity and Science


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.


[1] I have no clue who originated this idea, but it is a good one.
[2] Such individuals have betrayed their profession and are unworthy of the title scientist.

No comments:

Post a Comment