Science as a discipline is not supposed to find its roots in
faith. It is supposed to find its roots
in intellectual pursuit and then put faith in action to prove a question empirically. How long is the “faith in
action” (hypothesis) part supposed to go on?
When does the “faith in action” (hypothesis) for science start to look
more religious than scientific? These
questions do not diminish science as a discipline nor do they take away from
science, the ability to do what it’s intended to do. These questions only help to clarify where
people on an individual basis are rooted.
To
illustrate my point I will attempt to expound upon one particular hot topic
that charges both the scientific community and religious community at large. Science should be empirical, but those who
hold to religions like atheism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc… typically get
charged. Over one hundred and fifty
years ago a hypothesis was put forward by Charles Darwin concerning evolution;
he wrote a book called: The Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in
the Struggle for Life, (better known as: The Origin of Species).
Because of this “theory” many scientists have put the scientific method
into practice and some atheists have come to believe this is the best known
answer to the origins of life; while other have reserved judgment. While still others have come to the
conclusion that evolution does not add up. In the process man has gained an invaluable
amount of information concerning the biology of man and other species.
Much in
the way of understanding our genetic makeup as well as the genetic makeup of
many other species has come forth recently because of this particular
scientific discipline. One particular
study has been in the works for many years; mapping the human genome. Scientists have recently completed an
extensive amount of research that has found our genome to be over three billion
base pairs. In the process they have
found that our genome is only slightly different from that of many
primates. There are only about 500 base
pairs that are noticeably different between humans and primates. These differences are significant though they
be quantitatively small (500 out of over 3 billion is a small number).
Many
proponents for evolution believe this to be good evidence leading to the proof
of a purely naturalistic evolutionary process for life and go as far as to say
God is not necessary. This is the
religion of atheism. Scientifically
speaking, is that a correct assumption?
Does having a small difference in DNA, RNA and Genome structure prove
one species evolved from another? Does
it also prove that life’s inception had to be natural? What happens when a hypothesis has been
exhausted and no provable answers come to bear fruit for the purposed question? DNA, RNA coding is so advanced that it blows
our binary coding away! Every
evolutionary hypothesis that suggests that life could arise on its own by
purely natural circumstances has been either disproved or on the verge of disproved. Not one hypothesis has stood
the test of true science.
The flavor of the decade is
abiogenesis, which is purely faith based if one believes it true. There is no physical evidence to support
it. The atheist will say that young
scientific inquiries always have problems.
But the reality is that they must hold on to such things to give their
world view a chance at being logical.
Abiogenesis only works if your have blind faith because no real evidence
proves it. And what makes the faith
blind is the fact that we are dealing with the physical world, not metaphysical;
and there is no logical reason to blindly believe in the physical when there is
no evidence. It is similar to the time
when man believed the earth to be flat when all the evidence points to a
spherical earth. It is similar to
believing the earth is only 10,000 years old when all the evidence points to
the earth being much older.
No comments:
Post a Comment