Religion & Science
Some people believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive – that each person must choose one or the other as being the ultimate truth. In reality, they are both forms of truth. Generally, science focuses primarily on the how and evidence while religion primarily focuses on the why and faith; although many people of faith discern evidence of God all around them.
Scientists develop hypotheses and theories that must be substantiated by observations, experiments, and predictions. The objective of applying scientific methods is to reproduce or accurately predict an expected outcome. Once a hypothesis has been verified by testing and is generally accepted, it becomes a theory.
In some areas of science, there are proven theories that are taught in schools and never challenged such as the theory of electricity; however, there are areas of science where theories are “in the eye of the beholder”.
For instance, consider the origin of the universe from a scientific perspective. Most people have heard of the Big Bang theory (not the TV show) and assume that it represents the truth of how the universe originated. In reality, the Big Bang theory is not universally accepted by scientists. There are actually at least three main origin of the universe theories: the Steady State theory, the Big Bang theory, and the Pulsating theory.
If the Big Bang theory is the truth, then why are there multiple theories. In reality, none of these hypotheses can actually be replicated in a science laboratory. As a result, they all require an element of "faith".
One can’t help but respect scientists and their earnest search for the truth. They are dedicated to their professions and enlighten the world with their discoveries and improvements. As long as scientists stick to the how with substantive proof, people of faith can accept their hypotheses and theories. It is when scientists make claims which cannot be replicated that conflicts often occur.
For example, in spite of no evidence, some scientists still insist that Darwin’s theory of biological evolution across species is truth. What is true is that within a specific species, selective breeding does result in variations of the species. This is observable in cross-breeding of plants to create hybrids and dogs to create different breeds. The requirement is commonality in the DNA associated with a species.
The issue with Darwin’s theory is that he promoted the hypothesis that cross-breeding can occur across species such as animals and people or birds and plants. In spite of the vast number of incredibly brilliant scientists in this world; no one has been able to replicate this hypothesis. Even Darwin saw fallacy in such thinking when he said in his Origin of Species, Ch. VI Difficulties of the Theory:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Darwin also acknowledged in his My Life and Letters that:
"Not one change of species into another is on record .... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
Since the 1859 publication of the Origin of Species, there has still never been a change of species.
For those scientists without faith, Darwin fills the gap with a hypothesis, although not provable, for the origin of the species. Without this, there is no basis for debate. Knowledgeable people find teaching this theory in schools to be mindless repetition of antiquated falsehoods from the mid-1800s.
Then there are those scientists who are people of faith as well as being experts in their chosen field of science. An internet article called Evidence For God indicates that 13 famous scientists who lived between 1473 and 1955 apparently believed in the existence of God. They include Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Kelvin, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein.
During a luncheon at the California Institute of Technology in 1956, renowned physicist Richard Feynman gave a speech regarding the relationship between science and religion. Some of his key points included:
I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible. And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God ... a consistent possibility?
Yes, it is consistent. Despite the fact that I said that more than half of the scientists don’t believe in God, many scientists do believe in both science and God, in a perfectly consistent way. But this consistency, although possible, is not easy to attain.
If they are consistent with their science, I think that they say something like this to themselves: "I am almost certain there is a God. The doubt is very small." That is quite different from saying, "I know that there is a God." I do not believe that a scientist can ever obtain that view - that really religious understanding, that real knowledge that there is a God - that absolute certainty which religious people have.”
I think that when we know that we actually do live in uncertainty, then we ought to admit it; it is of great value to realize that we do not know the answers to different questions.
In conclusion: Where evidence is lacking, concrete proof required for scientific hypotheses cannot be attained. Although we may not be able to prove by scientific methods that God exists, we also cannot prove that God does not. Some scientists, however, come to believe that God does exist when they are awestruck by their amazing discoveries.
References:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/how-scientists-can-believe-in-god
http://www.thebigger.com/physics/universe/explain-the-various-theories-of-the-origin-of-universe/
http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html