A Christian geoscientist’s understanding of what the observations and physical laws say about Earth’s history and evolution.

Separation of Science and Faith (Part 1)

If you asked a typical American the questions: “What is the meaning of separation of church and state?” and “Is separation of church and state part of the Constitution?”, you’d likely get a majority of people answering something like this: separation of church and state means that no acts of religious beliefs (eg. prayer) are allowed in government funded bulidings or activities, and yes, it is in the constitution. Both of these answers are dead wrong. The separation of church and state has been flipped on its head by humanistic thinking that has prevailed over decades within our judicial system. It’s easy to prove that the original concept of this idea was intended to keep the government from dictating to the people any particular religious persuasion or belief. It was never intended to keep God or a person’s religious beliefs from being expressed in government, in public, or anywhere for that matter. All you have to do is simply look back at the founding fathers of the Constitution. They regularly prayed in schools and even read the Bible to students. They knew that a democracy would only work if the people believed in and upheld biblical moral principles that each man was “created” equal and were endowed by their “Creator” with unalienable rights. How quickly we have forgotten our founding principles and biblical heritage.

In much the same way, science has been turned on its head regarding origins as secular scientists have long forsaken the many biblical passages that clearly state that “God created the heavens and the earth”. Scientists today refuse to grasp this notion and as a result, hundreds of millions of our tax dollars are spent on research aimed at foolishly trying to discover the origins of life.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that there’s a cultural battle underfoot by mainstream science to discredit creation science by claiming that it’s nothing more than “pseudo science” that is filled with Biblical dogma that promulgates young earth and flood “theology” that can’t be scientifically proven or verified with supporting observations. The National Academy of Science, the government funded premier science agency that dictates and directs the future directions of science, works tirelessly at the grass roots level to support its beliefs that evolution is a fact and that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Their aim is to get every high schooler to believe that they are simply a byproduct of billions of random mutations that somehow has led to increased genetic complexity and order to yield the human race. Yet these scientists are continually stymied and amazed at the intricate workings of the simple cell that they can’t fully explain or understand. Evolution violates the chemical and physical laws we teach in schools. For example, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that chemical (energy) systems tend toward disorder (equilibrium). No mutation has led to increased complexity; yet evolution requires billions of such mutations to work. We call DNA a genetic code. A code is a series of instructions that are written by someone with intelligence and understanding. Since we don’t as yet fully understand the genetic code, clearly someone superior to us must have written this code. To conclude that DNA is a result of evolutionary chance is simply foolishness.

While it’s true that most Christians are biased in that they believe the Word of God is truth and if the Old Testament says that a flood covered the entire Earth and even the highest mountains, then it must be so, even while most creation scientists have failed to adequately explain the flood in the context of geologic history and observational reasoning. Many secular geoscientists simply view the Old Testament as a series of unverifiable stories or allegories that God used to reveal some lesson to mankind, but has no relevance in science or modern secular society. It doesn’t seem to matter that every archeological finding, every historical discovery and ancient text verifies and validates the Old Testament writings regarding people, places, and things discussed in the scriptures. These said scientists typically don’t put the New Testament in the same theologically questionable box as the Old Testament because even the most ardent agnostic would have a hard time insisting that Jesus didn’t exist and perform miracles on the Earth. However, few scientists who don’t actually read the Bible know that Jesus himself talked about Noah’s flood (Matt 24:38-39). Furthermore, almost every ancient culture has historical documents or legends about a world-wide flood event. Secular scientists simply dismiss these anthropological facts because it doesn’t fit their world view of Earth’s history.

I would argue that secular scientists are just as biased, if not more so, than Christian scientists. Secular scientists refuse even to consider an alternative to their world view even though no one has observed more than 99% of their Earth’s history and there are alternative theories that actually fit the observations and obey physical laws far better than plate tectonic theory. They simply believe that their view is the only one that “can” be valid. Plate tectonic theory has become a theology. This, I’m afraid, is not science. Thomas Chamberlain, the founder of Geology Journal, and former President of the University of Wisconsin, sternly warned scientists that if we fail to always consider multiple working hypotheses, we will become biased in our thinking and science will head in a direction that will lead to where observations are misinterpreted to fit into a preconceived theory instead of objectively looking at the observations being used to validate or refute all possible theories. Multiple working hypotheses allow us to find imperfections in our knowledge. Until all scientists, creationists and secularists alike, can come to a common ground of openness on the basis of science alone, where our biases are left on the table, we will continue to fail as scientists based on Chamberlain’s valid definition of true science, which must consider multiple working hypotheses.

0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment