Science vs. Religion: A False Dichotomy by Ted Slater on 11/21/2006 at 3:00 PM

I regularly debate the creationist or ID side of the creation-evolution debate, and have become accustomed to hearing evolutionists present the idea that science and God do not mix. If you've got a scientific mind, they say, it should be obvious to you that all the evidence points to Darwinism. If you disagree that "all this" came about because of evolutionary processes, then you obviously trust faith more than the scientific process.

Of course, I believe both the scientific evidence and Scriptural evidence is on the side of "God made all this."

Touchstone Magazine's James M. Kushiner explores an aspect of this debate -- the arrogance of some "scientists" -- in a recent post in his Mere Comments blog:

[W]hy is it assumed that when someone dons a white lab coat it's the equivalent of putting on the white baptismal garment, but instead of washing away sins it removes the stain of irrationality, giving the bearer, by sheer grace of being "a scientist" access to pure rational powers of reasoning, untainted by irrational religious beliefs?

What an apt way to characterize the smugness of those "scientists" who in their zeal to prove God is irrelevant have embraced the frog-to-prince fairytale that is evolution.

A blog entry on CADRE goes on to defend the role of Christians in the field of science:

The greatest scientific discoveries prior to the 20th Century were virtually all by Christians who were investigating God's creation. Throughout history, Christians have studied the creation because they considered that part of the general revelation of God. It is an absolute fantasy that religious people have neither the inclination or motivation to seek natural causes for events. No Christian that I know (and none that I have ever read) argue that scientific investigation seeking natural causes of things is wrong. What is viewed as wrongful is allowing people with naturalistic philosophical worldviews like scientism or evolutionism to somehow be considered the only valid voices concerning the study of our universe.

Let me encourage those of you who find the biblical and extra-biblical evidence unsupportive of Darwinian evolution. You may feel threatened by the arrogance of certain "educated" men who try to intimidate you with talk of allele frequencies and the geologic column, but don't be. With a bit of research you can rightly respond with talk of irreducible complexity and information theory. In the end, regardless of which high-brow terms we know, we should be confident that the Lord has accurately revealed in the Scriptures and in nature both himself and his means of creation.

(For more information about Intelligent Design and Creationism, take a look at Answers in Genesis (this is a good article to start with), the Institute for Creation Research, Origins, and Science Against Evolution.)

Science vs. Religion: A False Dichotomy by Ted Slater on 11/21/2006 at 3:00 PM

I regularly debate the creationist or ID side of the creation-evolution debate, and have become accustomed to hearing evolutionists present the idea that science and God do not mix. If you've got a scientific mind, they say, it should be obvious to you that all the evidence points to Darwinism. If you disagree that "all this" came about because of evolutionary processes, then you obviously trust faith more than the scientific process.

Of course, I believe both the scientific evidence and Scriptural evidence is on the side of "God made all this."

Touchstone Magazine's James M. Kushiner explores an aspect of this debate -- the arrogance of some "scientists" -- in a recent post in his Mere Comments blog:

[W]hy is it assumed that when someone dons a white lab coat it's the equivalent of putting on the white baptismal garment, but instead of washing away sins it removes the stain of irrationality, giving the bearer, by sheer grace of being "a scientist" access to pure rational powers of reasoning, untainted by irrational religious beliefs?

What an apt way to characterize the smugness of those "scientists" who in their zeal to prove God is irrelevant have embraced the frog-to-prince fairytale that is evolution.

A blog entry on CADRE goes on to defend the role of Christians in the field of science:

The greatest scientific discoveries prior to the 20th Century were virtually all by Christians who were investigating God's creation. Throughout history, Christians have studied the creation because they considered that part of the general revelation of God. It is an absolute fantasy that religious people have neither the inclination or motivation to seek natural causes for events. No Christian that I know (and none that I have ever read) argue that scientific investigation seeking natural causes of things is wrong. What is viewed as wrongful is allowing people with naturalistic philosophical worldviews like scientism or evolutionism to somehow be considered the only valid voices concerning the study of our universe.

Let me encourage those of you who find the biblical and extra-biblical evidence unsupportive of Darwinian evolution. You may feel threatened by the arrogance of certain "educated" men who try to intimidate you with talk of allele frequencies and the geologic column, but don't be. With a bit of research you can rightly respond with talk of irreducible complexity and information theory. In the end, regardless of which high-brow terms we know, we should be confident that the Lord has accurately revealed in the Scriptures and in nature both himself and his means of creation.

(For more information about Intelligent Design and Creationism, take a look at Answers in Genesis (this is a good article to start with), the Institute for Creation Research, Origins, and Science Against Evolution.)

Comments

[1. Simon said the following at 4:54 PM on Nov 21:]

1

Here are two articles that debunk a popular "contradiction" between science and Christianity:
http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-1068.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods46.html

The latter article also points out that "major historians of science today no longer hold the simplistic position that 'religion' has been nothing but an obstacle to 'science.'" Imagine that!

[2. Becca said the following at 5:29 PM on Nov 21:]

2

I just finished reading a disturbing article about the "new atheism" in this month's Wired magazine (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism_pr.html) in which the author mentions that most mainstream evolutionists think that Darwinism is compatible with God - and that atheist extremists who are also proponents of Darwinism (like the infamous Dawkins) are "making things harder for their friends" by refuting this argument.

In light of such statements, I find it interesting that you write here as if the mainstream scientific opinion is that Darwinism and belief in God are mutually exclusive.

The scientists and students of biology I have encountered at my university are by and large of the opinion that there is no contradiction in believing in God while accepting Darwin's theories - and indeed, the believers among them consider the complexities of evolution that they encounter to be further evidence of God's own limitless and creative power.

[3. John said the following at 5:36 PM on Nov 21:]

3

Amen to this.

As a student at a science-oriented school and a committed Christian at the same time, I find it easy to reconcile science and religion - obviously I believe faith in Christ is far from an irrational belief. I am friends with several Christians at my school who say that being a Christian actually enhances their scientific learning. Studying something so clearly designed such as the protein cascade involved in the formation of memories, or the elegance of a perfectly-fit microwave spectrum, only increase my wonder at the intricate works of God.

The science-faith dichotomy is artificial one, started because of the humanist bent of the Englightenment and was only made viable through Darwinian evolutionary theory. Richard Dawkins, noted biologist and atheist, said famously that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

But many of the inherent premises of science - namely that a natural, well-ordered universe exists outside our senses, that it is worthwhile to determine the universe's nature, and that we are able to make meaningful deductions about the world from those senses - these were attitudes fed by a distinctly Christian viewpoint during the birth of science as practiced today, and very difficult to hold from an existentialist or post-modernist point of view.

For a great review of the role of Christianity in science, I recommend reading the first part of the book The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy by Nancy Pearcey.

Usually I find that non-believing scientists hold the virtue of rationality in a esteem like religious faith, while dismissing any possibility of deity, since evolution excludes the need for a Creator. The popular mindset that you have to check your brains at the door scientifically when you enter a chapel is damaging to the church. All evolution-creation arguments aside, more educated Christians need to have a lucid stance on how their faith actually harmonizes with science, instead of clashing against it.

[4. John M. said the following at 7:20 PM on Nov 21:]

4

I think we really need to separate creation from evolution. God created everything, but there’s nothing in the Bible that prohibits things from evolving after they’re created. Subject to God’s sovereignty of course. Science is at a loss to explain ultimate creation, and always will be. But we shouldn’t discount it entirely because of that. God is has no strong opinion as to my choice of what shirt to wear in the morning, as long as I try to live the day in accordance with his principles. Similarly, he may have no strong opinion on how many species of sparrows there are, even though he continues to number them.

[5. Ted Slater said the following at 7:29 AM on Nov 22:]

5

A couple of the comments above imply that Darwinistic evolution is compatible with Scripture. It's not.

(For you philophical types, this merging of the biblical account with an atheistic account would be an example of how the Hegelian dialectic is an invalid approach to synthesizing seemingly contradictory theories.)

The whole point of my initial post was to encourage Christians to consider that Scriptural and natural evidence point to the truth that evolution does not sufficiently explain how "all this" came about.

Please consider challenging the massive onslaught of teaching you've received saying that God is hands-off in the bringing about of "all this." God is absolutely not aloof.

Evolution has been proposed (and is propagated) as an alternative to a model in which God is involved. In other words, evolution is an atheistic (or at the very least agnostic) "answer" to the question of how we came about.

I'm trying to encourage our readers to not be ashamed of Scripture when it comes to how it lays out creation. I'm trying to encourage our readers to reconsider the evidence, and to draw a new conclusion, a conclusion that doesn't include a theory driven by the philosophy that says God is irrelevant.

For a good introduction to this theory, take a look at this article on Answers in Genesis --http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp -- and consider picking up Sarfati's book (mentioned in that article).

In the end, I'd rather take the position taken by Jesus -- who was in fact present during creation and witnessed it all. For Jesus, it's not "scientific speculation," but "observed fact." If He believes the Genesis account, then He will not fault me for deferring to His opinion and also believing the Genesis account. Once I did, all the material evidence in support of the Genesis account just fell beautifully into place. And my awe of His design grows daily.

[6. Jason Waddell said the following at 1:17 AM on Nov 26:]

6

Recently I had the chance to talk to an atheist at university. My friend and I were discussing evolution and he happened to overhear our conversation. My friend and I are Christians so were were discussing it from a Christian worldview, and he interrupted us and started to talk about Richard Dawkins and a book called "The Blind Watchmaker" and how it was totally revolutionary and proved that there was no need for a God at all.

I then explained to him my perspective on creation and intelligent design and how it fitted with my beliefs and so far has come up with answers for all the questions I have had (when studing science subjects at secular universities they are numerous).

What this guy couldn't handle was the fact that as a Christian I had to find an answer that suited my worldview for everything, that I just couldn't accept the facts as science and evolution presented them without trying to fit them into my worldview and finding a 'God' explain, for one of a better word.

I believe its all about the 'glasses' that we view life through. I view life through the glasses of a Christian, who belives in the authority of the Word of God, and when presented with evidence, I will look at it through these lenses. Others will look through the lens of atheism, and find naturalistic explanations for the going ons around them.

And I suppose for people that don't want to face the reality of a God they are accountable to, they'll find innumerable reasons to not believe in Him.

[1. Simon said the following at 4:54 PM on Nov 21:]

1

Here are two articles that debunk a popular "contradiction" between science and Christianity:
http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-1068.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods46.html

The latter article also points out that "major historians of science today no longer hold the simplistic position that 'religion' has been nothing but an obstacle to 'science.'" Imagine that!

[2. Becca said the following at 5:29 PM on Nov 21:]

2

I just finished reading a disturbing article about the "new atheism" in this month's Wired magazine (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism_pr.html) in which the author mentions that most mainstream evolutionists think that Darwinism is compatible with God - and that atheist extremists who are also proponents of Darwinism (like the infamous Dawkins) are "making things harder for their friends" by refuting this argument.

In light of such statements, I find it interesting that you write here as if the mainstream scientific opinion is that Darwinism and belief in God are mutually exclusive.

The scientists and students of biology I have encountered at my university are by and large of the opinion that there is no contradiction in believing in God while accepting Darwin's theories - and indeed, the believers among them consider the complexities of evolution that they encounter to be further evidence of God's own limitless and creative power.

[3. John said the following at 5:36 PM on Nov 21:]

3

Amen to this.

As a student at a science-oriented school and a committed Christian at the same time, I find it easy to reconcile science and religion - obviously I believe faith in Christ is far from an irrational belief. I am friends with several Christians at my school who say that being a Christian actually enhances their scientific learning. Studying something so clearly designed such as the protein cascade involved in the formation of memories, or the elegance of a perfectly-fit microwave spectrum, only increase my wonder at the intricate works of God.

The science-faith dichotomy is artificial one, started because of the humanist bent of the Englightenment and was only made viable through Darwinian evolutionary theory. Richard Dawkins, noted biologist and atheist, said famously that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

But many of the inherent premises of science - namely that a natural, well-ordered universe exists outside our senses, that it is worthwhile to determine the universe's nature, and that we are able to make meaningful deductions about the world from those senses - these were attitudes fed by a distinctly Christian viewpoint during the birth of science as practiced today, and very difficult to hold from an existentialist or post-modernist point of view.

For a great review of the role of Christianity in science, I recommend reading the first part of the book The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy by Nancy Pearcey.

Usually I find that non-believing scientists hold the virtue of rationality in a esteem like religious faith, while dismissing any possibility of deity, since evolution excludes the need for a Creator. The popular mindset that you have to check your brains at the door scientifically when you enter a chapel is damaging to the church. All evolution-creation arguments aside, more educated Christians need to have a lucid stance on how their faith actually harmonizes with science, instead of clashing against it.

[4. John M. said the following at 7:20 PM on Nov 21:]

4

I think we really need to separate creation from evolution. God created everything, but there’s nothing in the Bible that prohibits things from evolving after they’re created. Subject to God’s sovereignty of course. Science is at a loss to explain ultimate creation, and always will be. But we shouldn’t discount it entirely because of that. God is has no strong opinion as to my choice of what shirt to wear in the morning, as long as I try to live the day in accordance with his principles. Similarly, he may have no strong opinion on how many species of sparrows there are, even though he continues to number them.

[5. Ted Slater said the following at 7:29 AM on Nov 22:]

5

A couple of the comments above imply that Darwinistic evolution is compatible with Scripture. It's not.

(For you philophical types, this merging of the biblical account with an atheistic account would be an example of how the Hegelian dialectic is an invalid approach to synthesizing seemingly contradictory theories.)

The whole point of my initial post was to encourage Christians to consider that Scriptural and natural evidence point to the truth that evolution does not sufficiently explain how "all this" came about.

Please consider challenging the massive onslaught of teaching you've received saying that God is hands-off in the bringing about of "all this." God is absolutely not aloof.

Evolution has been proposed (and is propagated) as an alternative to a model in which God is involved. In other words, evolution is an atheistic (or at the very least agnostic) "answer" to the question of how we came about.

I'm trying to encourage our readers to not be ashamed of Scripture when it comes to how it lays out creation. I'm trying to encourage our readers to reconsider the evidence, and to draw a new conclusion, a conclusion that doesn't include a theory driven by the philosophy that says God is irrelevant.

For a good introduction to this theory, take a look at this article on Answers in Genesis --http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp -- and consider picking up Sarfati's book (mentioned in that article).

In the end, I'd rather take the position taken by Jesus -- who was in fact present during creation and witnessed it all. For Jesus, it's not "scientific speculation," but "observed fact." If He believes the Genesis account, then He will not fault me for deferring to His opinion and also believing the Genesis account. Once I did, all the material evidence in support of the Genesis account just fell beautifully into place. And my awe of His design grows daily.

[6. Jason Waddell said the following at 1:17 AM on Nov 26:]

6

Recently I had the chance to talk to an atheist at university. My friend and I were discussing evolution and he happened to overhear our conversation. My friend and I are Christians so were were discussing it from a Christian worldview, and he interrupted us and started to talk about Richard Dawkins and a book called "The Blind Watchmaker" and how it was totally revolutionary and proved that there was no need for a God at all.

I then explained to him my perspective on creation and intelligent design and how it fitted with my beliefs and so far has come up with answers for all the questions I have had (when studing science subjects at secular universities they are numerous).

What this guy couldn't handle was the fact that as a Christian I had to find an answer that suited my worldview for everything, that I just couldn't accept the facts as science and evolution presented them without trying to fit them into my worldview and finding a 'God' explain, for one of a better word.

I believe its all about the 'glasses' that we view life through. I view life through the glasses of a Christian, who belives in the authority of the Word of God, and when presented with evidence, I will look at it through these lenses. Others will look through the lens of atheism, and find naturalistic explanations for the going ons around them.

And I suppose for people that don't want to face the reality of a God they are accountable to, they'll find innumerable reasons to not believe in Him.