I am Koen, i am not a scientist, but I interested in science, more so because of my faith: Christian.
It’s my opinion that one can only stand straight in his shoes, if he is open minded and examines also other beliefs. If you don’t, it would be a bit hypocrite to claim to have the truth.
That is why, if I for example look through the paper I always read the science section or if I come to pass a book like eos, I look for articles that speak about the subject.
By the way not only science-evolution I examine , but also Islam I looked at closer and other religions like Buddhism and Hinduism more superficial.
I would even say that Christians who don’t know what and why they believe miss something substantial.
But the title is ‘faith is science’, very daring you would say, I guess.
Maybe more correct would be: ”faith could be science” or “science could be faith”.
To start: an explanation of the words:
Everyone has faith on a daily basis, going from believing that your doctor is certified or believing the vegetable container you buy in the store contains what the etiquette says it contains, to believing a God does or does not exist or eternal life is or isn’t reality.
With other words even an atheist has a faith where he can not be sure of 100 percent.
We don’t have so many certainties in live. So they stay theories what is not bad, but questionable.
Secondly science, the dictionairy says:
The systematic whole of knowing and of the rules, laws, theories, hypotheses and systems that can lead to attaining more knowledge.
Science can be divided in groups:
First group: technical science and historical science
Second group: pseudo science, border science and real science.
Technical science is the science that occupies itself with exact science, the science that can be measured or proved with experiments for example, while historical science occupies itself with trying to proof what happened in the past and therefore this is more difficult to proof or examine.
Real science is the science that is already proved, most of the time technical science.
Border science is science that is waiting to be proved, assumed to be proved shortly.
While pseudo science is actually no science, but it pretends to be science.
If we speak about evolution I am convinced that most of the science used is border science with a bit of pseudoscience and maybe a bit of real science, but judge for yourself as we continue this report.
It is often the differents between objectivity and subjectivity that would lead us to the truth what would be our ultimate goal. But as well as in religion as in science that is sometimes hard to distinguish. We’ll speak more about that.
By the way, to be clear, if we speak about evolution, we speak about macro-evolution being species evolving in other species, not micro-evolution the evolution that exists within species.
Generally people assume that theology confirms religion and science confirms evolution. Now our main goal here is to show that that is not necessarily the case.
If you talk about faith, any faith, there are three ways to judge it: being rational (objective), emotional (subjective), logics (a bit of both).
Now, though it has surely value, academicals or scientists don’t esteem emotional judgement, so we’ll skip that. I assume logics is to a certain degree valued, so I will shortly speak about that before we go to rational judgement.
Now, it is very easy, what is logical to you?
There is and was an always existing God who can do wonders with all the outcome that we know of, referring to the bible and todays evolving history and manifestations.
Or there where the always existing gasses that at a certain time exploded, with as a result an order in space being the complex systems, space exists out of. Followed by a spontaneous development of an atmosphere with the known electrical magnetical spectrum of seven different waves: gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible radiation(light),infrared radiation, microwaves, radio frequencies. Let us also think about all the minerals in our earthcrust: metals, charcoal, oil, gems,...
Live coming from dead material, cells developing themselves to complex organisms with eyes, ears, noses, etc. without even knowing that there is something to hear, see, smell, feel, and species developing themselves in other species till we arrive to the day of today. Pure at random? coincidence? while it is so complex?
For witch one you need the biggest faith, witch is most logic.
Another good example of logics are the missing links:
If evolution is truth than we must see species in transitional stage and not a few, but millions.
Evolution is an ongoing process, so we must see for example apes becoming man and all the other species becoming their next stage. Not only that, but than we must also find millions of fossils or remainings(bones) from species in transitional stage. Acually groups of species wouldn't exit because there would be only one group of species: those in a transitional fase.
Scientists are doing there utmost to find one example, while they should find multitudes.
The single ones they claim to find eventually show up to be a hoax or manipulated.
So only two examples of logics, maybe of some value for you, but than to come to the real science, practical science, objective.
A grasp out of the arguments:
wonders: unfortunately wonders here in Belgium are not so common compared with other parts of the world, the bible says:” Jesus couldn’t do many miracles in his home villages because of their unbelief”, I would say that is the same case here, but it happens, I know people who occupy themselves with it, and though it’s often subjective, sometimes it is objective if we see changes on x-rays or if for example people who could not walk or are blind for years, walk and see again.
But critics will often stay critical no matter what happens.
Evolution goes in against the law of thermo-dynamics: the total quantity of energy stays unchanged, the usability and availability are always reducing. Meaning: if something (here earth or universe) is left on it self (without intellectual intervention) it will always detoriate, and eventually fall apart.
Talking about subjectivity in science:
Measuring techniques to determine age: there are more of them, but they give very different results, these techniques are not proved to be correct.
Let us look for example at the carbon fibre measure technique where the carbon fibre in materials are measured to determine age. They assume that the carbon is zero in the beginning, that it increases always equally and that there are no external influences that could change the amount of carbon, while none of that is necessarily the case.
As I read weekly through the scientific articles in papers or magazines I observe many contradictions week after week, to give a simple example: the ice caps on the poles one says it to be melted in 20 years while others say 100 or 200 years. It is the same with age of the earth some say that it is a few million years old other a few billion years.
Ask two scientists to proof you the opposite, with the right motivation they will normally do that for you, because they are going to look only to the clues that will lead to the hypothesis to be proven. They know often in advance what they are going to prove what is not the right order of doing things.
Off course in religion there is also a lot of subjectivity.
But other convincing scientific arguments against evolution or old age of the earth are for example:
The magnetically field covering the earth: it’s a fact that it is reducing and it is a fact that it contributes to the heating of the earth. With other words, it we would count back those millions years science claims, the heat it would generate would make the start or development of live impossible.
The same for the sun; it’s a fact that it is reducing, counting all those billions of years back, the sun would almost touch the earth what would again make live impossible.
Also the first spaceship landing on the moon had a very large landing gear not to sink in the space dust. Since it is a fact that there is a continues rain of stardust or space dust, they assumed that after those billion years there would be several meter of the dust, but in fact in was only a few cm, indicating on a (very)young age of the galaxy.
Scientists are in possession of clues that there would be oxygen in the original atmosphere what would make a biological chain reaction (needed for the development or the first cell) impossible.
These are some scientific arguments against evolution what would make it more likely for faith to be truth than evolution. So you see that science is not necessarily serving macro-evolution, but it can even serve faith, but faith will stay faith, if it would be proved to be truth one day, than God would have missed His goal, that is not His intention, and will therefore not be allowed.