Wednesday, 3 July 2013

Science vs Atheism

Science has given us wonderful things.  Man’s study of the earth and our own bodies has led to great discoveries, amazing technologies and life-saving medical procedures and medicines.  We can travel to the moon, understand how we work and generally improve our life.

Perhaps because of the power science holds in the minds of some they have almost come to view it as a god themselves.  “It’s not a mystery, it’s science.”  Many atheists hold science as the replacement for religion, substituting faith for reason, fiction for fact.  While science has given religion a bloody nose in the past (see Galileo), it has not always been the beacon of truth some say it is.

The scientific method is to observe something, make a hypothesis about why something is so, gather evidence through experiments and observation and come to a conclusion based on facts.  Never should emotion or bias skew a scientific result.  This is how many scientists work, but not all.

A large portion of the scientific community profess no belief in God, therefore they’ve accepted evolution as the basis for all life on earth.  This is a theory which needs evidence to be proven correct.  What is needed are fossils, particularly fossils that would be considered missing links, the steps between ape and man for example.  These missing links have been extremely difficult to find.

In some cases scientists have manufactured evidence to support their theory.  Look up the Piltdown man if you don’t believe me.  Now I realize the vast majority of scientists don’t do this, but what kind of a scientific method is this?

Based on the way scientists and atheists talk it is implied that the entire scientific community is in agreement about evolution.  That is not so.  Not only do they disagree about the general understanding of evolution but there are many scientists who believe in God but can’t or won’t talk about it because of fear of being shunned by their colleagues.  Of course there are some scientists who are vocal about their belief in God, one of these being Alistar McGrath.  Mr. McGrath has decided to take on Richard Dawkins, not only for his disbelief in God but for his rudeness towards those who do believe in God.  And there are many more scientists out there.

In 1916 a psychologist names James Leuba asked 1000 scientists if they believed in God.  Of these 42% expressed a belief in God.  In 1996 this survey was repeated by Edward Larson of the University of Georgia.  It was expected that the number believing in God would have declined significantly as scientific knowledge increased but it hardly moved as 40% professed a belief in God. 

Consider these scientists who do not rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design:

Ulrich J. Becker, Professor of physics at MIT:  “How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any compelling answer ever given.  If you discovered how one wheel in the ‘clock’ turns—you may speculate how the rest move, but you are not entitled to call this scientific and better leave alone the question of who wound up the spring.”

John E. Fornaess, Professor of mathematics at Princeton:  “I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to superclusters of galaxies.”

William Knobloch, Natural Scientist: “I believe in God because to me His Divine existence is the only logical explanation for things as they are.”

Marlin Books Kreider, Physiologist: “Both as an ordinary human being, and also as a man devoting his life to scientific study and research, I have no doubt at all about the existence of God.”

Sir Bernard Lovell, British scientist: “The probability of . . . a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space which we are considering it is effectively zero.”

Fred Hoyle, Astronomer: “The entire structure of orthodox biology still holds that life arose at random. Yet as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that the chances of it originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance.”  “The origin of the Universe, like the solution of the Rubik cube, requires an intelligence.”

Robert Jastrow: “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.” “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Isaac Newton: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

At the risk of boring you I’ll stop here but I have a list over 40 names long of scientists who belief in some kind of intelligence behind creation. 

Do all scientists believe in evolution?  No.

Of those who do is there agreement about how it happened?  No.

Is dogmatically asserting “evolution is a fact” good scientific method?  No.

No comments:

Post a Comment