A Can of Worms

This blog is a can of worms because I am going to tell you how science is based in faith. But first, I need to share a little about what I believe:

It's no secret that I am a Christian. But you might not know that I haven't always been one. In fact, although I grew up in a loving Christian home and went to church, I didn't know Christ until late 2005, and I didn't take Him seriously in my life until January 1, 2006. That's when I became a Christ-follower. Directly before I learned about who Christ really is, I spent at least 7 years believing He didn't exist. I honestly thought Christianity was a crutch for those who didn't have the self-confidence to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and make things happen. I thought the Bible was written by man and therefore flawed. I thought that the ideas Christians had about loving your neighbor and being faithful in relationships were nice, but not dogmatic. I even thought that most major world religions believed the same basic thing and therefore, if any were true, all were somewhat true, and all roads led to heaven (if there was such a place). But the belief I held that gives insight into today's post is that I thought science was a much more intelligent lens to use when viewing the world, and for some reason, I thought science was stronger, more sound argument, than religious faith. I was wrong. It actually takes just as much, if not more, faith - FAITH - to believe in science than it does in Christ.

Why?  

The history of science is a history of ever-changing theories. The problem with accepting a theory because it proves the data set is that the data set is infinitely big.  More data will only allow for the elimination of finitely many hypotheses. This is the problem of under-determination - a problem that consistently arises because as long as I am finding finitely much data, that data ALWAYS underdetermines the theory. 

(derived from notes taken in a lecture by Dr. Douglas Blount, Ph.D. Philosophy, professor of Theology)

Need I say more? 

Science is based in theory. No scientist will deny this or be ashamed of it; it's how science works. But as stated above, the problem with science is that theories are based on data available at the time, and that available data is ever-changing, so theories, consequently, are ever-evolving. Speaking of evolution, the below comment was posted by a man I don't know on facebook to my claim that evolutionism and creationism are based on faith.

"Evolutionism has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. It's completely science based. And yes, it is a theory, though <I> don't believe creationism to be. In order for something to be a theory, it has to be able to be tested. Which evolution can. You can't really test what was written in any holy book."

Ray J. from Facebook

Uh....did he admit that evolutionism is a theory and then also say is has nothing to do with faith? Faith, by definition, is a "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" - ergo trusting in a theory is to have faith in it. It's the same idea as saying I have "faith" that my car will start or the chair will hold when I sit on it. Faith is based in experience and conviction, and science is built on the experiences of testing data and to support various theories, having convictions over the findings, and then altering those "proven" theories when the data changes or results differently when tested. Now, my response to Ray J. and others who scoffed at my claim (did they honestly think I wasn't preloaded with a solid argument to back my statement) - 

"Science is the most unstable system that exists. Science once proved that the world was flat, then it proved the world is round. It once proved that the sun revolved around the earth, and then it proved that the earth revolves around the sun. Then there's the most recent news that 'scientifically imperial evidence' that once proved the age of some moon rock, which was used to determine how old the moon is and how it formed, which is supposed to give us insight into how the earth was formed, was misdated and is now 'scientifically proven' to be much younger than they thought- throwing off their theories on rock formation and the age of the universe. Need I also mention the theories about relativity, the speed of light and that pesky little problem current science had with understanding the subatomic layer- which is completely chaotic and unpredictable- and any good scientist knows that order cannot possibly come out of chaos- oops! Science is based on the belief that man-made systems of math and physics are absolute and cannot be faulted. But the truth is that while science has done a fabulous job of helping make sense of what we see, it has done a poor job of explaining what we don't know. And with the ever-changing paradigm shifts and new revelations, the truth is that it actually takes more faith to believe whole-heartedly in science than it does in the truth that the world was created by a super-intelligent being that we learn about from the Bible. I am consistently AMAZED that intelligent human beings think it's somehow more incredible, logical and exciting to think that the entire world as we know it came from some amoeba, than to believe that there's a God who loves us and created us in his image to glorify Him. It's a sad testament to how scarred humans are by sin, and how scared we are to allow love, true Christly love, to lead us." Molly R (facebook)

And that, my friends, is where I leave you. I encourage you to respond, debate, agree, disagree, but have an opinion.