News Ticker

Science and Christianity – Best Friends Forever?

Science – the quest for knowledge about reality is at the heart of Christianity. Neither Christianity nor science are about what people would like to believe or what people wish were true, they are about what is true. Science and Christianity both seek to know truth and use this knowledge to make the world a better place. A clear parallel can be drawn between God’s call for man to have “dominion over all the earth” in Genesis and the goal of science to improve the world by understanding how it works.

Science, Christianity and Darwin – The Third Wheel:

For a long time science and Christianity shared a common goal – TRUTH. Sadly, as time went by science started to believe itself above Christianity in the quest for truth. The status of divine revelation that the Bible had enjoyed was questioned and man’s fallible reasoning became the new final authority. The Bible and Christianity were no longer off-limits and so men of learning turned their eye towards determining the truth of the Bible itself. Then came Darwin.

Darwin was the “coup de gras” for fallen man and the human desire to be free of God’s judgmental eye. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is often considered “The God Killer” as it gave man an intellectual rational for believing that God did not exist.

Since Darwin a rift has developed between Christianity and science. Where science and Christianity had long walked hand in hand seeking to understand the nature of the universe together, Charles Darwin turned round one day and stabbed Christianity in the back.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution came into direct conflict with the teachings of Christianity by claiming that it was not God that created man but rather random chance and natural selection that “created” all life. Today this theory has become a bastion of the scientific establishment.

Darwin and his acolytes saw the evidence they had available to them at the time to be very convincing, so they gradually abandoned the claims of Christianity in favour of the new evidence against it. On the surface, this seems totally reasonable. Surely the quest for truth involves following the evidence to its most probable conclusion. Whilst I totally agree with following the evidence where it leads this must be balanced with humility.

The Need for Humility:

Darwin focused on one very limited sphere of scientific evidence to the total neglect of all the other evidences that God exists. The weight of evidence from other fields of inquiry such as natural theology, archaeology and even eye-witness testimony on pain of death, would surely have given the true seeker of truth cause for reconsidering the perhaps hasty conclusions he had drawn from the very limited evidence he had available.

Humility recognises the fallibility of human reasoning whilst acknowledging the omniSCIENCE of God.

The Frailty of Human Reason:

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” – Albert Einstein

Secular scientists often accuse Christianity of being irrational. This could not be further from the truth. The fundamental difference between the way Christianity and science discover truth is not reason, but rather presupposition. The renowned scientist Stephen Hawking illustrates the difference clearly, affirming that “there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind”.

Christians believe only God is omniscient.

No matter how good your reasoning is today, you may have a new piece of evidence tomorrow that demands a new conclusion. An omniscient God never has this problem!

“If we offend the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous.” – Blaise Pascal

Rationality is at the heart of the Christian faith because Christianity’s God is a God of reason. The universe is reasonable because God – its designer is reasonable. Therefore according to Christianity reason exists because God exists. Reason is rooted in God.

What explanation does the secular scientist have for the unchanging, transcendental rules of reason?

Why, without a transcendental God as the source of reason, should a constantly changing universe have unchanging rules of logic and reason that can be examined rationally through science?

The laws of Cause and Effect demand a sufficient transcendental, unchanging cause to explain transcendental, unchanging logic and reason.

Back when Christianity and science were friends this was no problem for the scientists because they had the transcendental, unchanging God of Christianity. But now, denying God’s existence they still want to use all his attributes! How unreasonable!

Advances in Modern Science Make Evolution Even Less Probable:

Today the evidence that Darwin had at this disposal seems very limited.

  • He had no understanding of the complexity of even the simplest cell. This raises potentially insurmountable problems regarding the probability of a cell just coming together by random chance.
  • He had no understanding of Information Science which posits that a mind is required to create information (Werner Gitt)
  • He had no understanding of DNA which shows that all life is built up from code / information.

The Fossil Record and Transitional Forms:

Darwin had a very limited fossil record. He staked his whole theory on the idea that as more fossils were discovered, the fossil record would show thousands of transitional forms linking all the different forms of life together validating his view that everything evolved from a common ancestor. Today, over 150 years later we have an extensive fossil record and these transitional forms have still not been found.

Where There’s a Will There’s a Way: Improbable Nothing When You’ve got Infinity!

“For life to have come about by chance and then evolve into us, is so improbable that for all practical purposes it is impossible.” –A.Creationist

I am always interested when I hear atheists answer claims like this because their answers imply tacit agreement to the claim that evolution is ridiculously improbable! With all the positive evidence for God’s existence surely the impartial scientist would abandon evolution in favour of intelligent design, unless he has defined God out of science a priori (before the evidence)!

Atheistic scientists of the past used to get around the “ridiculously improbable” issue by claiming that the universe was infinite – had always existed. That way, with infinite time in the past even the most improbable event would happen. Unfortunately the Big Bang Theory ruined this one for them by declaring the universe had a beginning – JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS! They still desperately cling to as much time as they can in the past (currently 13.7 billion years) to give the “ridiculously improbable” time to happen!

To replace the infinite universe the clever atheists have come up with the idea of a multi-verse. The idea here being that there are perhaps an infinite amount of other universes in other dimensions. Because of the infinite number of possible universes whatever is logically possible will happen in one of these other universes. What this essentially means is that even the most ridiculously improbable event will take place in at least one of the infinite number of other universes. The punch-line is:

We just happened to be in the universe where the ridiculously improbable occurred – Evolution!

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.” -Carl Sagan

Although Sagan would never have admitted it, science has been “bamboozled” by Darwin and his atheist disciples.

Reason has been thrown out the window.

Impartiality has been thrown out the window.

The search for truth has been replaced with the search for naturalistic explanations for everything – no matter how implausible.

Secular Science is a Pale Reflection of What Science Once Was.

Christianity, the friend of real science, stands at the door knocking, calling for scientists to abandon their a priori materialistic assumptions and return to the quest for truth no matter where the evidence leads.