SCIENCE AND FAITH
By Richard Deem
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called “Mendelianism”. He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and “rediscovered” him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860’s was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of “conflict” between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to “improve” the stock). He was writing how the “priestly mind” was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton’s contribution.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Hi! John:
Although the posts of those past great minds shed light on us, I think it is not effective for Atheists today because they would think if only they knew current science now, they wouldn’t think so.
I suggest that you post more current great Christian scientists’ views to help modern minds think twice.
Thank you for all your hard works. I wonder where are those talkative non-believers gone recently though. I miss reading their comments that give challenges for us to think harder.
God bless!
October 20th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I return, for the moment…
“He was writing how the “priestly mind” was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics”
I have said before that i agree with that statement. The ‘priestly mind’ is forced, by its own inculcation, to filter all new data through the filter of what they already ‘know’ in terms of religion. A pure atheist who discovered anything profound in genetics would not say ‘well, this is how god did it’, they would simply say ‘this is how we evolved to reach the point we currently occupy in spacetime’. A far more accurate statement given available data.
It is certainly 100% true that a ’scientist’ who is also a person of faith carries baggage that secular scientists do not; having a default answer that ‘must’ be correct is NOT how the scientific method works.
Anyone out there think that is in any way incorrect? Seems pretty ironclad to me….
- ID
October 20th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Hi! Id:
Glad to read your comment. That makes me reread the original post above. Thanks!
Now you are talking about filter and baggage, interesting indeed.
I think you have thrown out the baby with the religious bath water you don’t like.( or even I can say I don’t like either)
You’ve filtered out “God our Creator” from this universe and science…etc. Isn’t that about time you check your filters and the baggage with them that you are not aware of.
Focus on Jesus and you will see the difference.
May God’s truth shine on you!
October 20th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Hi! John:
Sorry for my previous comment. I didn’t read carefully. Now I do see the significance of this post. Thanks to ID too.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:22 am
You have the heart of a saint, Ellen. May God continue to bless you.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:39 am
Ellen -
The baggage i am talking about is the certainty that you have a ‘fact’ that all other information has to fit around. The result is peolpe like taht guy mark who used to hang around here, believing that the world is literally 6k years old and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Clearly, irrefutably false, but he/they cling to the falsehoods for the simple reason that the hard data does not fit their narrow worldview.
Although not all religious people are so insular as all that, the underpinnings remain the same. a biblical/thelogical source of data forces anything new to either match the religious dogma or be dismissed out of hand.
So, if you think that i am filtering out ‘god our creator’ you need to realize that your claim has no basis in fact and therefore is exactly what i am talking about. example: what of the LHC (large hadron collider - you can get a wiki if you care to) finds the higgs boson, or some research center creates rudimentary life from basic biological but nonliving amino acids and all the sudden another gap your god hides in is removed. will you admit that there is no longerr a need for the ‘creator’ and renounce your faith? or will you remain stubbornly entrenched in your religious worldview, dismissing the significance of the breakthrough? (and not just you… can you imagine mark admitting he was wrong all his life? im just saying…)
The other side of the coin: if religion found some stunning new data (of jesus showed up in a puff of smoke at halftime of the superbowl, or whatever) i would admit that i was incorrect. But which is more likely?
- ID
October 21st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Ha Ha Dave!
You’re SOO funny!
I love to read your posts!
1- “…used to hang around here…” You are the one who posts and runs, refusing to answer simple questions.
2- “…irrefutably false…” Um, Dave, you need to get out your dictionary and look up the word “irrefutable”. There are a LOT of people who look at the same evidence you do, and come to different conclusions.
3- “…not all religious people are so insular as all that…” Good one, Dave. I pointed you to some websites and articles that you dismissed out of hand without even reading them because they didn’t fit your “filters”.
Jesus WILL one day appear in the clouds to receive those of us who know him, but in the meantime, he can appear right now wherever you are. All you have to do is ask. If you sincerely want to know the truth, ask Jesus to reveal Himself to you. He did it for me, and everyone else who desired to know the truth throughout the ages. It doesn’t matter where you are, or who you are, if you are honestly seeking God, He can be found. God is NOT hiding.
Every time I tell you how you can know the truth, you run away. Please don’t run away, Dave. God loves you and wants the best for you.
October 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
ahh mark pipes up. read this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040611080100.htm
and tell me that you can refute it. you can count on your fingers, mark, and see time. until you at least elevate your discourse to a level that recgonizes reality, i have really got nothing for you.
- ID
October 21st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Dave,
Once again, there is NO reference in the article as to HOW they came up with the age of the ice cores. Typical obfuscation from the so called “scientists”. Yet, they have no “filters”, or agendas. Yeah, right.
Here’s one article refuting it:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter12.asp
But, Dave, you accept it without thinking; hook, line, and sinker.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Hi! ID:
Thank you for the explanations. I understand your position very well. Let me copy and paste some of your arguments below.
…Although not all religious people are so insular as all that, the underpinnings remain the same. a biblical/thelogical source of data forces anything new to either match the religious dogma or be dismissed out of hand.
So, if you think that i am filtering out ‘god our creator’ you need to realize that your claim has no basis in fact and therefore is exactly what i am talking about…
You said”… a biblical/thelogical source of data forces anything new to either match the religious dogma or be dismissed out of hand.” I don’t think it is an “either”, “or” situation. I think a lot of Christians don’t take that kind of “either or” attitude. For me, I am always interested in what science’s new discoveries are. Yet, I like to remind you all the new data is not the final version of the reality of this universe. We never know if another Einstein would pop up tomorrow and overthrow today’s new discoveries or even any new data would pop up and confuse us with our current views. So instead of forcing the new data to fit the interpreted Bible views, I am taking ” wait and see” attitude. In addition, I think men’s interpretations of Bible could be wrong too, but Bible’s core messages and central theme will not have any error. I trust that either science will have new discoveries to revise its interpretations or Bible interpretations by men could be in error.( I am not talking about Bible itself but Bible’s interpretations. ) So the new data of new discoveries won’t threaten the validity of Bible. Just wait and see that science will one day converges with Bible truth. ( Or some of the interpretations of Bible may need to be corrected.)
I know those who don’t believe in God are trying hard to detour around singularity because it takes more faith to believe that before the “big bang”, there was nothing, Nothing created this universe than believing in a Creator God. God doesn’t need to hide in the gap at all. He has nothing to hide. God is not a cosmic big Egoist either– to set up His statues everywhere in our world. (God is very humble indeed so He hides His glory for those who look for it, they will find.)
I’d wish that God show Himself to you but God is not a cosmic genie to be ordered around by any human beings. In God’s mercy, He does show Himself to sincere seekers, but that is up to Him to decide if He will do so anytime soon. God’s realm is a spiritual realm, so if you limit Him to be in our material box( or universe) then of course, you couldn’t find Him. Yet He does leave His fingerprints everywhere in our universe to let us know His existence. So your claim ” my claim has no basis in fact” is because you limit my claim to our 3 or even 10 plus dimensional world but not consider the spiritual dimension or spiritual realm at all.
Besides, if God is a reality in someone’s life,( not a delusion to have a relationship with some cosmic, invisible figure but a real solid relationship) that someone may feel he/she no longer needs to negotiate with whatever data.
However, I do think Christians need to consider the new discoveries carefully so that skeptical friends may not think their belief in God is just a blind belief, so that there are common grounds that both sides can communicate and talk with.
You may think it is only subjective feelings among Christians about God’s existence; think twice, why so many who formerly rejected any concept of God at all, repented and accepted Jesus as their Savior, can then experience the rebirth of their spirits and have since established relationships with God our Creator.
Jesus said that we need to be born again in order to see the Kingdom of God. I’d hope you realize this truth soon.
God bless you and yours, ID.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Hello Ellen-
I accidentally deleted my response and am hard-pressed to find the time to write it again, but the gist of it is that for too many the answer is a clear either”, “or” situation. If you believe in teh scientific method, you can see the way in which our understanding advances. If you do not, then nothing science discovers matters. Our interesting fellow-poster Mark, for example, refuses to accept anything that would make the literal bible incorrect, and goes to great length to find tiny ways in which current science might be flawed. But i know you are on my side in at least the most relevant ways; you have certainly flown on an airplane, yes? And Bernoulli’s Pronciple is something inferred from the scientific method. You can’t “see” the Bernoulli Effect. But if a plane flies, science works. Seems to me that we can indeed fly… so here in the secular world there is no grey area. either you know that science is finding truth, or you think planes stay aloft with gods magic love instead of the Bernoulli Effect.
The ’spiritual realm’ has no relevance for me; as such i defer such judgements to those for whom it creates meaning. But here in the ‘real world’ one must accept that there is truth to the scientific method, or face ridicule at the hands of us that are clever enough to remove the archaic filters.
To be reborn in my context is to constantly challenge the way in which I view the world. People like mark have had the same worldview for 2,000 years and counting… here in the secular world that sort of thinking is both irrelevant and pointless.
- ID
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Dave,
You finally admit to having filters: “The ’spiritual realm’ has no relevance for me…” And: ” here in the secular world that sort of thinking is both irrelevant and pointless.”
Good job. Pitiable, but honest, for once.
Also, you have a faulty perception if you think that finding Higgs boson would negate the need of a Creator. While it is the great hope of atheists everywhere, it is STILL hypothetical. Besides, it would be like finding a potter’s wheel and trying to say that the potter didn’t exist; it doesn’t make sense in the REAL world.
Since you have been completely wrong about me so many times, this will blow your mind: I actually worked on some of the electronic equipment used in a smaller electron accelerator that led to the development of the much larger Large Hadron Collider.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:14 am
ooohhhh…. you worked on an accelerator. and yet i notice you gloss right over the whole ‘flight’ analogy. Inference from the scientific method clearly works, old man. many things that are clearly correct are only inferred until that exact instant that they work in the real world.
really don’t get it? or playing possum…
- ID
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
Dave, whaaaatttt?
Because Bernoulli articulated why an airplane’s wing should be designed the way it is, that somehow negates God, and makes the bible incorrect? No, I don’t get that.
Especially since birds were flying long before humans - with DESIGNED wings.
Somehow, you continually express an attitude that those of us who have met Jesus somehow reject science. You are wrong, and you need to get past that.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
… and again you miss the point. those laws were discovered via a method that you decry. you dont like ice cores, you dont like isotopic decay, you find fault with everything that makes you litle religious bubble incorrect… yet those same methods you decry are extremely accurate. why is it that you think you can pick and choose which scientific advnaces you believe and which you dont? it is all the same methods used to arrive at the conclusions. ergo, if the math works out and we can fly, then the same methods of scientific inquiry in teh realm of radioisotopes, or plate tectonics, or whatever else are also valid.
whatever. if the bible said gods love kept you on the ground you wouldnt believe in gravity. transparently blind faith is sooo incredibly dangerous….
October 27th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Dave,
You just gloss over MY point: I DON”T have a problem with science, I think it is great that we can discover and uncover mysteries of God’s creation, and most discoveries continue to expound on the glories of God’s handiwork.
The problem is when the interpretation is couched in an atheistic, evolutionary viewpoint. I think that is wrong, and no longer dwells in the pure scientific realm.
You DO have filters, and you are missing out on so much more that this life has to offer.