Can Science and religion get along?

Jan 27th, 2005
By Sean Pitman

Having studied both science and religion for much of my life, I agree that it is possible for science and religion to agree since they both can be the same thing. Yes, one's religion can be scientific and one's science can be one's religion.

Certainly there are those whose religion is not at all scientific, but the reverse is not true.

Science, or more specifically, the scientific method, is a rather simple and straightforward way of separating truth from error in one's thinking. It is a way of testing and refining one's beliefs. However, contrary to what many might think, science never reveals absolute truth about anything. Science only increases the predictive value of a hypothesis, but no hypothesis is ever fully proven by the scientific method. Therefore, whenever one holds a particular hypothesis to be true, there remains a degree of faith to that belief. In this sense then, science is a type of religion.

This statement is itself scientifically supported when one looks back through history and notes that some of the most cherished scientific ideas of the age have been completely disproved with subsequent discoveries. Even professionally trained scientists are human and subject to error in understanding and interpretation.

The same can be true of religion. Those who claim that religion is separate from science basically remove their notions of certain types of truth from the realm of general usefulness. Certainly there are types of truth that exist beyond the realm of scientific investigation that can still be known to be "true" in a very objective way. For example, one's internal thoughts and feelings can be known absolutely without any need for testing or scientific method. If someone likes vanilla ice cream, this is an absolute objective fact that need not be tested. But, how is this internally derived truth helpful to anyone else?

For one's internal notions of the truth of anything to be helpful to someone else, those notions must exist outside of one's own mind and be testable in a falsifiable manner. In those areas where religion makes statements about the external world that exists in common around each one of us, religion steps into the realm of science and must therefore become scientific if it is to be helpful.

The Christian religion, for example, does just this very thing.

Based on various biblical interpretations, Christians believe many things about the workings of the external world that are actually testable in a falsifiable manner. For example, many Christians, to include myself, actually believe in a worldwide flood that was responsible for building much of the geologic column that exists today in a very short period of time.
Many of us also believe that certain other concepts held dear by popular scientists, such as Darwinian-style evolution, are completely opposed to the statements of physical reality detailed in the Bible.

These beliefs are actually subject to falsification and as such many believe that there is overwhelming evidence that certain Biblical interpretations have indeed been falsified by modern science.
So, new interpretations and amazing mental gymnastics have been employed by some in an attempt to maintain Biblical credibility, such as Winder's suggestion that the first chapters of Genesis actually describe Darwinian-style evolution. This is a very interesting conclusion coming from someone who has admittedly never read the Bible before.

For those who actually take the time to read the entire Bible, it is abundantly clear that Darwinian evolution, with its requirement for survival of the fittest over millions and even billions of years, is completely at odds with the picture of God found in the Bible. The Bible presents God as very much in tune and deeply interested in the welfare of his creation. At the end of creation week God is quoted as declaring it all "very good". On the other hand, Darwinian evolution requires long periods of very wasteful trial and error involving enormous suffering to highly intelligent sentient beings. The evil twisted nature of such a creative force is completely at odds with the creative power of a very personal an interested God described in the pages of the Bible.

Certainly evil is obviously present in this world. The biblical authors describe the whole of creation as "groaning and travailing together in pain until now." This is seen as a big problem since a need for a "new heaven and a new earth" and the passing away of the "old order of things" is clearly described. In short, the origin of evil, to include death, suffering, disease, and the survival of the fittest, is presented as a very recent and unusual phenomenon caused by rebellion against God's original plan and way of doing things that was "very good." Oh no, the Bible does not describe the processes required by Darwinian evolution as "very good", but rather as, "very bad".

The question now is, who is right?

If Darwin and the popular notions of most modern scientists are correct, then the religions based on the Bible are truly out to lunch. However, if the very clear and falsifiable statements of the Bible are correct, then it is the mainstream scientists who are out to lunch.

And, it would not be the first time.


The writer is Chief Resident in the Department of Pathology at Loma Linda University Medical Center (Loma Linda, California)

For more information, please review my Web site at

www.naturalselection.0catch.com

UWO Opinions