Well, I chose to tackle a touchier question than most, and if anyone other than the teacher sees this, I may be getting some...interesting responses. But, here we go:
I disagree with this statement, and would love to take the time to explain why:
9. The more discoveries Science makes, the more Science becomes at odds with the teachings in the Bible.
In my opinion, the subject of science versus religion is one of the most heated topics today in the scientific community, with the main point of the attack being led by the waves of evolutionary, secular-oriented scientists attacking the bastion of religious-minded philosophy that has been the base of science since time immemorial. Ever since Darwin's "Origin of Species" rocketed onto the scene, this debate has raged. One of the key points in the battle is the idea that science, which people take to mean Evolutionary theory--and possibly our scientific advances in all--disproves the "purely religious" text on which religious scientists base their own worldviews. I would wholeheartedly disagree with that statement for a number of reasons.
For one thing, so much of science today is theory, and that is the issue. Evolution is not, as treated so often in the scientific and public communities, a fact. Now, I can understand the argument that the Bible is not as well, but I will deal with that in the next paragraph, so just hang on to that protest for a sec, okay? To continue, Evolution does not hold the proof that it needs--so much of the evidence today, such as Lucy, the Cro-Magnon Man, and more are all fabricated from small pieces and the rest reconstructed according to the scientist's "best guess," and even carbon-dating is used only to validate the scientist's "projected opinion" rather than provide an accurate date of the substance tested--and the desperate search and hullabaloo whenever another "example" is found lead me to believe that they have not, as of yet, discovered something valid enough to put this argument to rest. So, without the proof necessary to take this Evolutionary theory to a fact, science cannot simply eliminate religion out of hand like they claim it can.
As well, the crux of religious science is based on the Bible, which holds historical and factual relevance to a point that evolution, the "secular religion," cannot match. For example, the Bible has proven useful to both historians and archaeologists as a startlingly useful resource in locating ancient biblical sites such as Sodom and Gomorrah as well as placing certain historical events like the sun standing still for a day--a formerly outlandish concept first found in the book of Joshua and yet proven by computing technology to be true in the last few years. Further, the "strange, restricting, and useless" laws that have been under such controversy have been revealed to be common remedies to many health issues--as things such as eating blood and raw meat have been proven to be quite unhealthy. So, from those respects, the Bible has a base layer of truth to it that the scientific alternative cannot provide.
Moreover, the basic principles and complex discoveries of science are related to the Bible rather than negating it. As we delve deeper into the realms of biology, anatomy, and the organic sciences, we find an inset order and stunningly well-arranged system of organs, neurons, electrons, and so much more. By chance alone, it is said, it would take such an improbable number of years that it would round out to infinity, and thus be impossible according to logic. At the same time, this complexity lends itself to the idea of some designer behind such a complex and intelligently-made piece of work, for which the Bible has an answer. One Christian author said that, "Science cannot be used to prove the existence of God," but I would disagree because we can use science to see His handiwork. We can't see the wind, but we see when it makes branches dance in the open, clear air, don't we? That is the crux of my argument. Science, in itself, does not disprove the Bible as it advances--rather, it can lead to discoveries regarding the validity of both the book itself and the Author behind it.
I hope that is said nicely--I didn't go for a conclusion because it felt repetitive and I already used up past my 3 paragraphs. =)
No comments:
Post a Comment