“[Science and Religion's] differences are largely superficial, and…the two become almost indistinguishable if we look at the real nature of each.”

As a student of two physical sciences, and a Bible-believing Christian, I’ve often been asked if my belief are an oxymoron (from both the Science Community AND the Christian community). Questions of how I can believe these two schools of thought, or questions from one on the validity of the other.

These two articles inspired me to share some of my worldview on this subject: The 2005 Templeton Prize was awarded to Dr. Charles Townes. Towns is an iconoclast amoung the Science community, as his philosphy is that his Christian Religion and Science are inextricably linked.

Not having heard of Dr. Townes before, I find myself agreeing with his logic and philosphy.

Hattip: Michelle Malkin

“I don’t think that science is complete at all. We don’t understand everything and one can see, within science itself, there are many inconsistencies.”

Back in the spring of 1999, in my later years of my days as a student at the University of Arizona, I investigated something I called “The Biblical Purpose of Science”. I collected a notebook of my observations in the history and methodologies of the Scientific Community, and cross referenced the Dynamics and Mechanics of the Scientific Disciplines, and applied them to Biblical Priciples like “Individuality”, “Sowing and Reaping”, “Faith”, “Form and Power”, and “Unity with Union”. It was an educational experience, and I often return to those notes as they are a great reference in this seemingly tricky subject.

One major conclusion which I came to was Science is a tool to understand God’s Creation, which is a characteristic of God Himself. So in the study of the Sciences (Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Anthropology, etc.) we are really studying the character of God, and his infinite creativity. And in my experience, Science does not disprove God, nor does God disprove Science. Science ultimately points to God, as when some questions are answered, more unanswered questions are created. I don’t know how scientists can believe they are disproving Religion, because my studies in Astronomy (and they were quite extensive) were dumbfounding; the more I knew, the less I understood.

“I don’t think that science is complete at all,” says the 89-year-old physicist. “We don’t understand everything and one can see, within science itself, there are many inconsistencies. We just have to accept that we don’t understand.”

We just have to accept that we don’t understand.. I have the same philosophy towards the Bible as well. It is such a deep book, and I have so many unanswered questions (IMPORTANT unanswered questions) – like which came first, light or darkness? (Genesis says there was Darkness before the light :: John says that Jesus was the Light :: Paul said that Darkness is sin, and its living and active. Sin did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned. So where did that original darkenss come from? …)

… There are just some things I will not understand. I attribute this to be one of them.

Another major thesis I arrived at in my study was that Science and Religion serve two tandem and seperate purposes.

• Religion asks the Question of Why?
• Science asks the Question of How?

Religion should never answer the question of How, and Science should never answer the question of Why. When they do, things get hairy and screwed up.
It was the reason Gallileo was excommunicated. The Church was telling the world how the universe worked (and it was wrong).
It is the reason why Socialism exists. Science said why humans existed, taking away their individual identity. (You are a result of an accident, you are a number, you are not unique, religion is an opiate; serve the state.)

“They are much more similar than people generally accept,” Townes says. “Science has faith. We make postulates. We can’t prove those postulates, but we have faith in them.”

I think the main mistake people make is how they view science.
There was even confusion of this word back in 1828:

SCI’ENCE, n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.]

1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.
2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.

   A principle in science is a rule in art.

3. Art derived from precepts or built on principles.

   Science perfects genius.

4. Any art or species of knowledge.

   No science doth make known the first principles on which it buildeth.

5. One of the seven liberal branches of knowledge, viz grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.

[Note - Authors have not always been careful to use the terms art and science with due discrimination and precision. Music is an art as well as a science. In general, an art is that which depends on practice or performance, and science that which depends on abstract or speculative principles. The theory of music is a science; the practice of it an art.]

I view Science more as a discipline to finding truth. Science is not Truth, because bad discipline yeilds bad Science. Which is why Francis Bacon developed the Scientific Method. His reasoning was that man was inherently flawed, so we needed a system to make sure our knowledge was really truth.

So, I guess that answers the question of why I can be a Christian and a Scientist.
I hope it makes sense.