Science & Religion

sci-rel

Evolution is not only false, but impossible. It is scientifically unfeasible at every corner. Everything from the beginning of the universe to the beginning of human life cannot be explained by materialistic scientific proposals. All of these have a Divine origin. This is what science itself proves, but not the kind that begins with an anti-supernatural bias.

Science by Mob Rule

Quite often the secularist has tried to frame the debate as if it is science against religion. This tries to paint religion as having no scientific evidence on its side. It also intends to hide how secular materialist science is itself a religion. They treat the theory of evolution like an established fact, and not as it is, a bad theory that requires more blind faith than science.

These secularists will try to act like there should be no discussion because the discussion has already taken place and it’s been settled by all the scientists, as we should go along with the consensus and not reject it. Any new scientific discovery should be poured through the filter of the consensus and not challenge it ever. But a scientific view is not true because it’s popular, but because it has been verified by the scientific method, which evolution has not. No one has ever tested evolution in the lab and have been able to duplicate it.

Science that Advances

Most scientific breakthroughs happened when someone went against the consensus thought. If you must ride the bandwagon to be considered scientifically sound, we would still believe in a flat earth or a geocentric solar system. Physics would not have been changed by Newton and later by Einstein. Almost all medical advances occurred because someone thought outside of the box. Even Darwin’s evolution was at one time unconventional and new.

The advocates of material evolution are serious scientists. They should know better. A theory, by its very definition, is not a universal absolute. It is a possible explanation for something. Knowing evolution is a theory means there may be a possible better explanation, one that fits the facts better. One cannot accept a theory as law, and it certainly should not be held as beyond scrutiny because it is considered the consensus view. The role of science is to search for the truth, even if it is new, even if it is not the popular view at any given time.

The balance between spiritual faith and worldly knowledge is characterized quite well in a quote by Albert Einstein: “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

 

Advertisements

About nealabbott

i am a writer who loves baseball and opera
This entry was posted in apologetics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Science & Religion

  1. stace8383 says:

    The problems with this are myriad, but I’ll just tackle the easiest because I’m lazy. You are using the layman’s definition of “theory” to discuss something which is in fact a scientific theory – they are two very different things. In science, a “theory” is something which has been repeatedly tested and and confirmed through experiment and observation. In science, to call something a “theory” is to say “It has passed every test we can throw at it, it’s pretty damn certain”. So you can now add this updated definition of theory to your vocabulary, and I hope it helps you going forward.

    Like

    • nealabbott says:

      Please explain to me how evolution was ever repeatedly tested and confirmed through experiment and observation.

      Like

      • stace8383 says:

        Okay, I’ve got a great example from right here in Australia. We have an introduced species call the cane toad in Queensland, it’s toxic and is a major pest. Snakes in the area tend to eat cane toads, but because they’re toxic, the snakes that eat them die. But only snakes with larger heads/mouths can eat the cane toads; a smaller mouth just isn’t capable. So the ones with larger heads who eat the cane toads tend to die more and breed less. As a result, the average head size of snakes in Queensland has been getting smaller. That is evolution in action – the snakes with smaller heads are the ones which survive to breed, thus producing more small-headed snakes. It is tiny changes like these which add up over millions of years to produce larger changes, including completely new and different species. This is far from the only example humans have observed, but it’s a handy one that I know off the top of my head.

        Like

      • nealabbott says:

        this is adaptation, or macro-evolution. no one denies adaptation takes place. i’m talking about micro-evolution, where one kind produces another kind. what you were talking about were snakes before, during, and after this example of adeptation

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s