Man, I really hate falling under a label that seems to generate so much animosity and antagonism from folks in the scientific community – that being, in this case, Creationist (as opposed to the term ‘denialist’ that is also mentioned).  It honestly makes it difficult for those of us who are genuinely interested in the study and research in those fields to actually have calm, rational discussions with these folks because they’ve already labeled us as ‘quacks’, ‘kooks’, and ‘idiots’.  We never even get a fair shake to ask our questions because as soon as we do, we’re blown off with some sarcastic, derisive answer.  I am actually quite hesitant to identify as being with any one particular camp exactly because of the reaction I know I will get – I hate being written off just out of hand.  It kind of annoys me, really.

I’ve deliberately subscribed to RSS feeds from a number of science blogs recently because I want to stay abreast of the things that are being discussed in the scientific community.  I have to admit, though, that I have to grit my teeth through just about every single one because the comments and snide remarks directed at Creationists and people of faith who hold opinions and beliefs that differ from those popularly recognized in the scientific community set me right on edge.  Granted, a lot of this animosity some of these folks bring on themselves due to ill-informed arguments and general ignorance, but some of it is truly undeserved, as well.  There’s something about people of faith being involved in science that almost instantly seems to generate the hostility of secular scientists.  It makes it tough on those of us who do belief in a literal 6-day creation but who also want to be involved in, at the least, the discussions going on around the scientific community. 

Consider me a true skeptic, I guess, who also holds Creationist beliefs.  I know I’m not going to get in your face about things, but I will look at the evidence presented with as impartial a mind as I can.

So, I guess I’d just like to see the hostilities dialed back.

I stumbled across another interesting science blog yesterday, this one focusing primarily on Earth Science.  In this entry, Chris Rowan makes a couple of statements that all scientists (especially Christian scientists) should take into consideration:

Furthermore, to properly interpret criticism you need a firm theoretical understanding of the theory you’re criticising.

This is one the primary reasons why lately I’ve tried to curtail myself from writing on topics about which I have very little knowledge and expertise.  There are few things so embarrassing as making a dogmatic point only to find out you’re wrong and then have to backpedal. 

I’ve watched a number of Christians debate certain scientific points, and it quickly becomes evident that these folks clearly have a less-than-adequate understanding of the other side of the argument.  So most of the time arguing is spent trying to get the Christian to understand the point that the secular scientist is trying to make, rather than actually debating the merits of the argument itself and the supporting (or damning) evidence from both camps.

And let’s be clear – “evolution can’t explain x, therefore ID” is not an example of the scientific method in action, and “an unspecified intelligence at some point did something to DNA by some unspecified mechanism” is not a scientific hypothesis. When you make some positive hypotheses about the nature of God- sorry, The Designer- and when and how he has done his designing, and show (by experiment, not assertion) that your hypotheses explain the facts better than evolution does, then biologists might start taking ID seriously.

In the field of science, I’ve seen researchers on both sides of a lot of issues fall into exactly this kind of trap.  Most commonly, it is the Christian scientists¹ who will make specific claims, only to have them fall under the weight of evidence from evolutionary scientists. 

As a result, I have to wonder how much of science from Christian research organizations is founded on actual evidence and research and how much is simply airy exclamations based on theological beliefs.  Don’t get me wrong – I do believe the Bible to be accurate, and I believe in a literal, 6-day creation and intelligent design.  But I fear that far too many scientists who are Christians try to make science fit into theology.  I believe that science and theology can complement one another, even when they seem to be in opposition.²

I believe that Christian scientists do a great disservice to both science and theology when they try to force scientific evidence to fit their own personal theologies.  I think that fear plays a large part in why they try, though – science and rationality sometimes have a way of shaking one’s faith in the existence of God, especially when they seem to support the traditional Darwinian evolutionary viewpoint.  But rather than facing their fear and examining fact, far too many Christian scientists take information gleaned in the scientific community and try to force it to fit a specific mold.  Consequently, they come off looking like fools and their research is quickly debunked as garbage.³

At any rate, it’s a little food for thought, and as always, this entry is open for discussion and debate.  And I believe that reading through Chris’ site may inspire some interesting and new story ideas.

1. Let me be clear here – when I say ‘Christian scientist’, I am not referring to the particular philosophy/religion/cult of Christian Science; I am merely making a distinction between the average secular scientist and the scientist who possesses a belief in a creator God.[back]
2. I attribute this to the fact that mankind’s understanding of the universe is finite and that there is likely no way possible that we will ever be able to understand everything, even under the best and most rigorous scientific study.[back]
3. For the record, I’m sure that even if they had indisputable evidence backing their claims, there would be those in the scientific community who would laugh and scoff.  You always have naysayers.[back]

I’ve been delighted that a friend of mine has joined the ranks of bloggers.  He never fails to stimulate my thinking, and his entry from the other day is no exception:

As to another application, while studying philosophy here in seminary, I’m curious about Plato & Natural Theology. Philosophy has always been ‘searching’ for a conception of God that is ‘pure-God’, consistent, full, beyond disbelief. But it’s a search without an end. Who’s to say your conception of God “is”? You conception of God will never be The Concept of God, it will always only be Your Conception of God, in-so-far as it’s based only in your head & not in external info (like God’s own self-revelation).

As usual, I’m taking one piece of his monologue and running in a slightly different, but related, direction with it.  Yes, I like philosophical rabbit-trails.  They’re fun.

He’s correct in saying that no conception of God will ever be consistent, full, or beyond disbelief.  Ultimately, none of us can ever have a concept or understanding of God that is comprehensive and total.  God is, by definition, infinite; we as humans are, by definition, finite.  It is simply impossible to fit the infinite into the finite.  The finite will never be able to contain it all, let alone comprehend it or understand it.  This is the nature of the created to the Creator.  He will always, ever be so much bigger than us that all we will ever be able to understand of Him will be just the very, very tip of a massive iceberg.  In point of fact, it is safe to say that our human (finite) understanding of an infinite God will always be infinitely small. 

This is exactly the reason why faith is a necessary factor in relating to an infinite God.  We have to understand that, since we are infinitely smaller than Him, there will always be an infinite number of things about Him that we simply cannot comprehend or understand, that will be forever beyond our reach to see, know, or experience.  This is why faith is absolutely crucial to our ability to relate to an infinite God.  We have to trust that God is good, despite the fact that He does not reveal everything to us, knowing that we are simply unable to grasp all that knowledge.

This is also why science will always fail to fully explain everything that exists and happens in the universe.  Science is, by its very nature, a finite tool.  It is a construct of finite men and so is inherently limited.  Because the ability of men to see and know and understand is limited, so too is science limited in the same ways.  Science is a useful tool for learning more about that which finite men can experience, but science can never be the all-encompassing, comprehensive tool of study that mankind would like it to be. 

Faith and science are not mutually exclusive tools.  They are, in fact, complements to one another, particularly when wielded with wisdom and patience. 

Men Pay the Ultimate Price to Attract Women – Yahoo! News

Personally, I like this part:

“Women live longer in almost every country, and the sex difference in lifespan has been recognized since at least the mid-18th century,” said Daniel Kruger at the University of Michigan. “It isn’t a recent trend; it originates from our deep evolutionary history.”

So, what, an observation of 250 years or so automatically generalizes to how-many-million years of human existence?  That’s some good ‘science’, that.

Or this:

Males of many species must fight vigorously for the right to mate. Think of rams butting heads. Spectacular male bird plumage is another example of biological effort required to succeed, effort that uses energy and can shorten a life.

Hm, haven’t seen too many guys butting heads late…. oh, wait.  Coupla guys over there right now… nevermind.  Oh, and that plumage!  Never seen a classier looking guy/transves… er, yeah.

Strange, though, how this kind of ‘evidence’ will probably be taken as hard scientific fact by most people.  There’s not one thing in typical human male behavior, anatomy, or physiology that would suggest to me that the male body works harder at acquiring a mate than does the female.  He doesn’t (usually) literally, physically butt heads with other guys, he doesn’t grow specialized feathers that are more brilliant than those of the female (doesn’t grow feathers at all, or brilliant colors, unless you want to count that ghastly Hawaiian shirt), he doesn’t secrete pheromones or anything of the like in order to attract a mate.¹ I guess we’re just going to have to keep looking for mates the way we always have – through our darn good looks and dashing personalities. 

Really, the high stress of our daily lifestyles and the drive to perform that nearly all men have still makes more sense with regard to our comparatively shorter lifespans than does this theory that it is our bodies somehow striving to produce something in us to make us more sexually appealing to our female counterparts.

1. A study I saw recently did suggest that men and women do produce some small amount of pheromones, but it did say, too, that it wasn’t a significant enough quantity to make any kind of real difference in normal ‘mating habits’ of the typical adult human.[back]

According to modern scientists, our universe began with a gigantic explosion, forcing a “traumatic growth spurt before it was a billionth of a billionth of a second old.”¹ Somewhere in there, a whole lot of matter and debris was scattered, forming our young universe, which is still, even now, rapidly expanding in an outward direction.

So, was there some kind of great big ball of dirt that contained all the elements within itself that now make up the whole of our universe, including those elements that support life on Earth?  Were there already tiny microbes there that would one day evolve into the human race, microbes that were in some sort of stasis until some catalyst (the Big Bang) pushed things into a much more manageable, and therefore much less restricted, space to form planets in just the right place around newly formed stars, allowing them to be put into action to start growing and evolving?  (Or did some primordial oozish chemicals combine to somehow become the first single-celled organisms?) I guess I wonder a little bit how scientists can form theories like these, when the statistical odds against such an event ever happening are enormous (to the point of being impossible).  The other problem with this theory is that it still doesn’t explain where everything comes from (the origins question) because in order for matter to have somehow formed out of an explosion, it had to have already existed in the first place.² Exploding gases sure don’t produce matter out of thin air (no pun intended).

Or maybe the goal isn’t to solve the problem of the origins of all matter in the universe.  Maybe the goal is simply to solve the question of where Man, and his environment, came from.  If that’s the case, then this is a whole different horse-and-pony show because then the questions, and the subsequent sought-after answers, are very different.  Still, I can’t see a genuinely curious scientist not being curious about the question of where everything came from.³ Maybe Mr. Scientist doesn’t really have a hope of answering those questions because he knows science isn’t likely to produce solutions to problems that are billions of years old.  Maybe he is simply trying to find out as much as he can before he dies.  Maybe he is simply trying to find meaning for his life by figuring out what his infinite reference point is.⁴

Meh, don’t mind me.  Just a bit of philosophical rambling that was screaming for attention.  (As always, feedback is greatly appreciated.)

1. Best ever map of the early universe revealed[back]
2. I’ve been told that the Big Bang and evolutionary theories are completely separate entities, that conclusions made in one do not necessarily affect conclusions made in the other.  The only problem with a statement like this, however, is that the very same scientists who tout evolutionary theory tout the Big Bang as the thing that got the collective evolutionary ball rolling.  It seems to me that this necessarily links the two theories inseparably together.[back]
3. I know that probes have been sent out with hopes of answering some of these questions, with not much success so far.[back]
4. The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre once said that no finite point has any meaning without an infinite reference point.[back]