I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and
religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of
science has been, if not to make it impossible for an intelligent person to be
religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We
should not retreat from this accomplishment. Physicist Steven Weinberg,
Science and religion . . . are friends, not foes, in the
common quest for knowledge. Some people may find this surprising, for there’s a
feeling throughout our society that religious belief is outmoded, or downright
impossible, in a scientific age. I don’t agree. In fact, I’d go so far as to
say that if people in this so-called “scientific age” knew a bit more about
science than many of them actually do, they’d find it easier to share my view.
Physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne
Take a good look at the statements above, both me are
Physicists. One interprets the evidence with his atheist believes, the other
with his theologian believes. Both men are looking at the same evidence, the
question is not is one man smarter than the other, the real question is how do
you interpret the evidence objectively. What do you base your opinion on?
Popular opinion, who speaks the loudest or do you look at the evidence
objectively from both sides?
Allan Rex Sandage, one-time protégé to legendary astronomer
Edwin Hubble, was a well respected cosmologist. At a conference of science and
religion in Dallas in 1985, there was no doubt at what side he will be sitting.
He has been an atheist all his life. Then the unexpected happened. Sandage set
the room abuzz by turning and taking a chair among the theists. Even more
shocking to a lot of people is that he declared publicly that he became a
Christian at age 50.
The Big Bang, he told the rapt audience, was a supernatural
event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics as we know it.
Science had taken us to the First Event, but it can’t take us further to the
First Cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time, and energy pointed to
the need for some kind of transcendence.
“It was my science that drove me to
the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by
science,” he would later tell a reporter. “It was only through the supernatural
that I can understand the mystery of existence.”
In the same conference, Dean Kenyon, a biophysicist from San
Francisco State University, stepped to the podium and actually repudiated the
conclusions of his own book, declaring that he had come to the point where he
was critical of all naturalistic theories of origins. Due to the immense
molecular complexity of the cell and the information-bearing properties of DNA,
Kenyon now believed that the best evidence pointed toward a designer of life. Specialists
at the highest levels of achievement said they were theists—not in spite of the
scientific evidence but because of it. As Sandage would say, “Many scientists
are now driven to faith by their very work.”
These are just a few examples of some Scientists that came to the conclusion that there must have been an intelligent designer. Some become Christian, some just theist, but its a step in the right direction.
God bless you guys, and remember..... Have an Intelligent Faith!!
-Nelis
I have a few minutes before being forced to do the food, clothing and shelter gig. So, you know, Pastor, there are moments when I think that trying to convince a nonbeliever - one whose heart is so hard that it's better not to waste your time - that God exists is completely fruitless. If one takes into account what Paul writes in Romans 9:15-18, it seems to justify what I mean, unless I'm completey misunderstanding what he is saying. These kind of people bore me, and I think that apologetics should be aimed at the Christian who is unschooled and on the fence with his/her belief. In light of that, if you listen to the likes of Harris and Dawkins, their objections are so childish as not to be taken seriously. As far as scientists are concerned, many of them work in fields that have absolutely nothing to do with biology. In turn, this leads me to think that they are no smarter that the average man on the street when it comes to the knowledge of anything supernatural. I think the layperson is fooled into giving them more credit than they deserve just because they hold some academic title. Again, I think sometimes that the efforts of apologists are better used for the nonbelievers who are yet to make up their minds, or current Christians that are feeding on milk and not ready or willing to chew the real meat of God or Christianity. I don't know if you agree with this viewpoint, but on my worse days, I would rather not even deal with the hard heart.
ReplyDelete