Science and Religion: Bridging the Divide

Well, it is clear from this article that Mr. Polkinghorne is 99% scientist and 1% religious. To say that he doesn't understand why most religious people deny evolution severely destroys any credibility he might have had. Evolution supposes that all life formed by purely natural processes (no God) Most religious credit life to a supernatural power (God) Evolution will NEVER be able to co-exist with religion in any logical maner. The two are opposing views. The people that try to combine the two MUST compromise on one side or the other. In the instance of Christianity to accept evolution you must disregard the Bible, which is an extreme compromise of the religion. In the instance of evolution, you must admit to the supernatural (which is neither testable, nor observable) and that is an extreme compromise of that view. But I said that EVOLUTION and religion can not co-exist, not science and religion. Poeple need to stop lumping the two together. Science ONLY exists if their is a God to sustain a logical and consistant reality that can be tested with reliablity of the outcome. The bottom line is EVOLUTION is not ALL of science. To deny evolution is NOT to deny all of science. Please understand that most Christians (including me) AGREE with 98% of science, just not evolution.

I agree with a comment above. I came with a theory called the theory of natural variation. It a theory of limits. It base on the concept that natural section is not 100 percent efficient of selecting out deleterious mutations. Dr John Sanford point in his book Genetic entropy & the mystery of the Genome that natural selection can not see near neutral deleterious mutations there fore the genome is decaying. Dr Sanford also made a peer review program to model natural seclation/mutation cycles. The program is name the mendel accountant. Since natural section is less than hundred percent efficient only so much change is achievable. The point that most change is achievable I call maximum deviation. It is point where the creature stops adapting or one step away from mutation meltdown. The test that can be done is simulate the wild environment of micro organism population in the lab. The first generation is frozen. Ten years latter that latest generation is compered to the first. If the latest generation is less fit than the first generation then the theory of natural variation is confirmed and Neo Darwin Evolution is wrong.

I agree with the comments above. Evolution is not all of science, and belief in evolution would be complete disregard of the Bible. I am 100% Christian and 100% believer in science. Science is the study of the way Creation works. The Bible does not contradict.

To the... people... who wrote the above comments: Go read "Stone Tablet Today" or some other bronze-age mythology BS. Science is not compatible with religion because science looks at reality while religion deals with making stuff up. I agree that you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution without severe mental gymnastics... which is why you should stop being a Christian and wake up and smell reality. There were no talking snakes, there were no worldwide floods with a magic boat saving all the animals in the world, and people are not made by a magic sky pixie. Evolution may not be "all of science" but it is the foundation of modern biology. Plus modern cosmology also says your book written by ancient ignorant sheep herders is wrong, so it's not just biology you need to have a problem with. If you don't like it, go live in a cave. I'm sick of you ignorant bastards living high on the life modern science has given you while the whole time complaining that it's wrong because it doesn't involve magic.

You above commentators are wrong, wrong, wrong.

People have trouble even considering ideas that may seem to undermine the basis of their beliefs.

However if you understand that evolution actually says NOTHING about the true origin of life and only expresses the fact (and it is a fact) that once life exists, chaotic mutations, sexual reproduction and transformations cause variation within the genome which causes a variation in traits.This can be clearly observed in labs with bacteria, plants, rodents, and anything that reproduces fast enough for mutations to be observed.
Darwinism proposes that survival of the fittest then provides a mechanism in which specific traits allow for increased fitness for reproduction with the offspring inheriting this positive trait.
Though I am not one to condone deceptive religions, If a Christian were to say that God's doing was to control these mutations in order to create the world's life, plants, animals, and Adam and Eve, then I'd say the two could coexist.
I must say I am not against religion, but when it causes closed-mindedness as illustrated above, it seems to be more dangerous than all the supposed good that has come of it.
There will always be questions that science cannot answer, and the unknown will always allow for some sort of mystic belief. I don't believe we will ever be able to truly understand what happens to the consciousness and the soul after death, but it seems like many Christian beliefs, stories, and holidays are based on the stars, and are thus similar to more ancient Egyptian and South American beliefs. That the religion seems to conceal this with complex stories about 12 deciples and 3 kings and the virgin birth and seem to disconnect with the 12 constellations and alignment of stars in the winter solstice.

Anyway, evolution, if properly understand, can coexist with that widely read piece of fiction The Bible

I wanna edit my post to not include kayla above me.. that took a while to write

Current news from physicists at CERN and the large hadron collider suggest that the existence of multiple dimensions and even parallel universes is not only possible but likely. A recent award given to the french Scientist Espagnat (million Euro) by UNESCO, an award also given to such notable religious figures such as the late Mother Terresa, tend to confirm that science can't really explain the real universe, the real world or the real empirical anything, with absolute certainty. Why then is it so difficult to arrive at the conclusion, that there are two distinct possibilities. Either 1) GOD in some form metaphysical or philosophical exists, and is therefore the basis of LOVE and HOPE, especially for a continued spiritual existence beyond this world. OR 2) That God doesn't exist, and that all of man made religions, hope and dreams are a shame designed to dupe people into better behavior and out of their money.
God intends it seems to have the animal man, pick the fruit from the tree of knowledge, hence gaining intellect and consciousness, nut not necessarily complete God like understanding of the entire Universe. I can relate to that. Besides, what angel of the Lord wants the duty to explain particle physics and Einsteinian Relativity, to a bunch of Goat Herders before the birth of Christ. If we had absolute proof of God and the after life, then there would be no need for faith or belief,,,,only servitude to a higher being under the threat of eternal pain and suffering. Me I prefer the free will choice. And I choose to believe despite the lack of proof for a full understanding. That's called faith in the unknown. Besides some Eastern monk summed it up when he said "When you stop striving to understand,,,then you will KNOW,,,,without understanding."
In short. I think Science supports religion as both are seekers of the truth.

Mr. Polkinghorne suggests an interesting but morally questionable idea about overseeing embryonic stem cell research. Though in the first 14 days the embryo has yet to develop into twins or a single baby, it won't become either if it's destroyed first.

I think the criticisms of Mr. Polkinghorne's reconciliation of evolutionary theory and God are severe. Evolution does not preclude God, though there are prominent atheists who use evolution as a reason to dismiss the need for--or existence of--deity.

As Mr. Polkinghorne says, science and religion both seek the truth, but the approaches differ and the answers they seek differ as well. For example, anyone who has seriously studied the Bible knows that Christianity doesn't attempt to explain the mechanisms of nature, though many erroneously think it does. The Bible is a guide to understanding human spirituality, morality, and our relationship to God, not an explanation of the natural world.

Science is limited to finding naturalistic explanations for what can be observed. It doesn't attempt to examine spirituality or answer questions like "is there a god?" nor can it. That doesn't make God any less real or religion any less pertinent in the world today. In fact numerous studies have demonstrated the positive role religion plays in people's lives. Similarly, science has advanced human knowledge profoundly and produced all kinds of wonderful things that make our lives better.

It is only people with a simplistic understanding of religion and/or science that need to place them in opposition to each other.

Oops,,,couple of typo's slipped through the last one. Hey look I had to grit and bear a lunatic college educated Geologist as he insisted that the world was only 10K years old. Relative time would stop this clown and have him hide under the bed when we go to day light savings time. Yes this EVANGELIST even had the nerve to bring up the Scopes trial, Darwinism and how a failure to get Genesis and the 24 hour creation down solid was a direct cause to the evils of abortion. No it didn't make me quit my Church, (But almost,,,I didn't attend for a month to cool off.)
There are certainly things in my personal experience that I cannot rectify or explain through the scientific method. Does it mean a total abandonment to reasonable logic and scientific study? Of course not. Are there questions that could be raised about some if not all religions, albeit some perhaps as trivial as semantics or the interpretation of a word once translated from Greek, to Latin or Arabic, to German and then to English and 30 more languages. Certainly. Does that leave me questioning my faith,,,or questioning translation. A person need only read the Bible, The Koran, The Vedas the I Ching, and other great religious texts with an open mind and an open heart. If you do you'll find all the basic rules are the same, the prophets doing basically the same thing, and the massage of LOVE and Harmony with each other and the Universe pretty much spelled out. Hey when they say a new Christian will experience the Holey spirit and become more peaceful and aware of everything and every one around him. That a new Christian will feel changed or reborn. Another religion says upon reaching Cosmic consciousness and one ness with the universe, one will experience bliss, and transcend the earthly burdens. Gee,,,sounds very similar to me. Certainly not sufficient difference to slaughter a few million people in some war over whose poetry is better, or more true.
Err note. You Cats in the Holey LAND. GOD'S COUNTRY. The birth-place of three major faiths from Gods relationship with one guy named Abraham. Try acting Holey for 24 hours will ya. If you want peace in the middle east,,,Gods Answer is "STOP KILLING!". Everything else will work it self out in a few hundred years. Gods not going to send a 6000 page document of treaty and maps to assign who gets what and who shares with who. Just STOP KILLING. It's in all three faiths hand-book. It is the will of God. Two Words equal peace. How damn difficult can that be?

KaylaKaze:
Someone read the bible a little too literally (or hasn't read it at all).

Science and religion should have no problems with each other as long as neither is taken to the extreme. I am not religious in any way, but I have read the bible, and I have no knowledge of scientific facts that completely disagree with anything in the bible. Keep in mind that what to include and what not to include in the bible was selected by the catholic church, so it might not be exactly what god intended if you believe in such things.

This debate is as pointless as trying to get the Israelis and Palestinians together for Christmas Dinner. The two opposing sides will never give for the most part. I'd like to think that I can believe in both a higher power and science. For the religious, isn't science really just a study of how God made all of existence? Science is a growing and self-correcting study, so it's entirely possible that the theory of evolution has yet to develop into something more along the lines of what might be acceptable to members of faith. If you truly wish to separate yourself from science and all its "misguided" beliefs, you should try living as the Amish do. Until then, science is as much a part of your world as the air you breathe. You're going to have to find a way to co-exist. And I don't see co-existing with science as a lack of faith, but rather a way to reaffirm your faith through checking the facts for yourself and formulating your own opinion on the matter with all the evidence you can obtain. I imagine God appreciates an educated follower more so than a mindless worker drone.

The idea that science and religion can't coexist is evidence of how closed-minded and dogmatic religion makes people. There may be some studies that show how religion helps many people have better lives which is great, but it does this by blinding them from the truth - your better religious life is merely an illusion. Many of the religious use God as a reason to not have to understand the world around them. The real sad thing is that most people who consider themselves followers of the Christian faith don't even read through the bible themselves, and only understand the stories however they've been explained a church. It is a religion that causes sever blindness, and is able to continue because of how blind it's followers are to the truth.

Have a look at the discussion at the Royal Society on YouTube linked from www.questionsoftruth.org to see some top scientists and philosophers reacting to the issues.

I hardly think religion is a problem-or science for that matter-unless the people involved are not looking at the possibilities, and only want to be right. I see "religious" people, and by that I'm referring to the Christian faith, that take stances that are unrelated to their opinion, and only involve them wanting to be right. This isn't how it works.

I myself believe in a Christian god, but I also believe that evolution is how He created life. However, I am not a church-goer because I don't want to have biased opinions in my mind for something that is important as this. A church pastor/preacher can sometimes try to teach only one side of the issue, the same as some people try to convince me that there is no god. Both of these instances have people that do not look at possibilities. Taking an extremist approach, or feeling too strongly that you're right is what hinders progress in these fields.

Science has and will continue to prove religion wrong. Science has proven that you cannot pray for rain, that the Sun is not a god and that the world is older than a few thousand years old.

Religions define their view of the world based on what science tells them is possible. Hindsight is 20/20 and we all view the ancient greeks as being wrong about having multiple gods that explain the way the world works.

Current religions will eventually suffer the same fate.
To think that we just happened to get it right this time around is absurd.

Notice I said religion and not faith. I believe you can still have faith without having religion because science cannot prove that there is a god or is not a god.

This is an Interesting observation, Christianity has always been raising standards in education, and Science. It is an uneducated statement to say that all Science has to be based on the Theory of evolution (emphasis on Theory). and people that are Christians that say that science has no proof on either are uneducated too. there have been many signs that there might be a god... take the Shroud of Turin, the Tilma (or roses) of Guadeloupe, or even incorrupt bodies of a few saints. These signs of god are largely ignored by the public, and even though scientists have been called to look at all of these signs, they cannot deny nor explain them. the image on the tilma was not done by human hands, the shroud of turin was claimed to be a fake because of carbon dating, but later was found out that the piece that was used for carbon dating was a piece of cloth that was sown on to repair it after it was caught in a fire. the incorrupt bodies are still unexplained, scientists have tried to duplicate it with Lenin, but to do it they had to remove his internal organs, and have a full time staff of 15 people to keep him looking good. there is major proof that god exists, and there is no proof that he doesn't, come on anybody through some Ideas out on how you can prove that god doesn't exist? I agree that the guy who wrote the book is 1% religion... but I don't think he is 99% science, because science is open minded... how can you solve any questions if you don't research all possible answers? EVOLUTION IS THEORY NOT PROVEN FACT... RELIGION IS THEORY NOT IDIOTIC HYPOTHESIS.

Thanks
Michael Tenney

To all those who call religion dogmatic and condemning:

If science is about open minds and logic, why are those who doubt global warming present evidence rejected and tarnished by those who believe it? To me, that makes it worse than most religions; we don't try to destroy or ridicule those who disagree with us (if we follow Jesus' example). Apparently, science (at least global warming) for many is a substitute for religion, with its ever-changing theories replacing religious precepts.

Science and religion are not incompatible; science answers the question "How does it work?" Religion answers "Why does it happen?" Who's to say that God uses scientific laws to control His creation? Also, opposing certain activities is not opposing all of science; many agree that because we can does not mean that we should. We just have a different reason why not.

First, remember that it was religion that started science. Religious men, seeking to know more about a created world, sought to find patterns in an organized world.

If I go into a museum and see five similar paintings, there are two options: the theistic (all five were painted by the same artist) or the evolutionary (all five are from the same school, likely based on an art movement founded by some base artist).

Either are rational from merely observing the paintings. You can look at signatures, but they may be missing or fake. You can read the plaque beside them, but it may be false. The only way to KNOW (scientifically - empirically) is to have been there and observed them being painted.

There is nothing irrational in saying that the entire universe and all its complexity in life were created by a super powerful super intellegent force (God) 10,000 years ago (or five minutes ago, for that matter, complete with your very real seeming "false memories" of the past). You can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. You were not there.

There is nothing irrational about attributing the same things to an incredible series of accidents so comically unlikely to happen that the only arguement that they could happen is that we are here (and if it ever happened, that is where we would be, since it had to happen where we are for us to exist to begin with). Again, however, there is no proof. You were not there.

Science can only observe the world as it is, not as it was (that would require faster than light speed travel or light being reflected to us clearly from far far away).

How do we know a bone is 65 million years old? Because it is in a layer of dirt 65 million years old. How do we know the dirt is 65 millino years old? Don't you see all the dinosaur bones in it!

Mmmmm, better be sure. Let's carbon date it. How? We will measure the decay of carbon atoms. They decay at a stead rate and will tell us when the bone stopped growing. Great! How do we know that carbon decays so dependably over millions of years? Because it has done so during the past few decades we've been watching it in that way. Decades? Well, it also works into the hundreds based on things that we know how old are from history.

Obviously, science has gotten into the habit of building castles in the clouds of the mind since the good old fashioned observations of Newton. Not irrational, just unprovable.

Science will likely explain everything we can see and cannot see in the Universe but it will not be able to explain why any of it is here, or how it got here. We can say that the Universe is cyclic, big bang, big crunch, big bang, etc... But why does the Universe do that?

We can say that the universe erupted out of an infinitely dense point and that time began at that moment and just ignore anything "before" the big bang. But how did that singularity get there? What DID happen "before" the big bang?

These are the questions religion attempts to answer simply by making things up. "Hey, I know, maybe there was a god who caused it to happen." So some people believe it and have faith that that is how everything ultimately came to be. Of course I've heard people ask "Well where did God come from?" This is the point at which you take a deep breath, get comfortable on the sofa, and turn on Family Guy.

My main point is that at some point science cannot explain anymore, perhaps this is anything "before" the big bang. And this is where we start speculating or conjecturing or believing in gods or whatever to add in an explanation. Or some of us just say "Well the sun will still give us light for another few billion years, lets just try to progress here on Earth."

Even if God exists, God certainly doesn't seem to have any interaction with this world. (Deism). So it is reasonable just to live life as if there isn't one.

Human beings are beautiful creatures. We have great potential and have great worth. Not because God made us, but because we have intelligence and it took hundreds of millions of years for life to evolve to produce us.

Human beings, if nothing catastrophic happens, will be able to produce their own 'heaven.' Some day people may be able to live indefinitely, some day we may inhabit many planets, some day no one will be starving or miserably dying...

The_Order...A guide to a better understanding

Would you say there is an underlying parellel between Religion and Science. Not so much as cousins but of one coexisting belief in different terms and ideals. For instance. God the almighty, the artisan of life, the one who cannot be described (in most religions). Can God be the energy source that binds atoms and creates everything? Thus putting a broad specrum on God however science would then have a definition and possibly expand science and religion into a larger more truthful spectrum and more precise theories and truths in both science and religion become apparent?

The_Order...A guide to a better understanding

I believe in evolution in which darwin was unsuccessful in defining, not made from monkeys at all, but of what? what everything is made of, there is a process...a process which is clearly defined in the bible KJV, and other religious texts. For instance Pangea...it did exist. Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden on Pangea before the Earth was split. Most people cannot understand how Noah's Arc worked, same concept...

KaylaKaze wrote:
"There were no talking snakes, there were no worldwide floods with a magic boat saving all the animals in the world, and people are not made by a magic sky pixie."

But there was a magical explosion which created the whole universe, then all this material came together all by itself. Then a planet formed in the perfect spot, which had some muddy water. A lightning bolt struck the muddy water and then inteligence was formed. lol please. YOU live in the clouds my friend. Science changes everyday like the shifting waves of the ocean, but its TRUE, until a month goes by and a different TRUTH is discovered. TRUTH is timeless and unchanging, so how can science be true when they keep proving themselves wrong. Man wake-up.

Often there is confusion between God and religion. God is quite comfortable with science , the big bang , evolution and all other well supported theories . Religion gets a bit edgy.

There is an interesting anomaly in evolution though - life began only once at a cetain point , life does not spontaneously pop up out of the gutter every day , why not ?? All life can be traced back to this moment of , dare I say , creation.

The big bang - "let there be light " , sounds like closet creationism to me ?

I have to put in my two cents worth here. The supposed “problem” existing between science & religion is really not what it seems.

To believe in God is just that…a believing ! It is by faith, which simply means it is a type of awareness or knowledge of a thing not based upon the usual or normal faculties of awareness or understanding such as merely the mind. What most unbelieving intellects do not realize or understand is that we are a very complex being made up of three basic parts : the physical body with it’s faculties that relate to the physical world or environment, the soul with it’s faculties (mind, will & emotions) that relate to our psychological environment, & our spirit which has the faculties of conscience & intuition which relates to the spiritual environment. This is crucial because this latter part is the only means by which one can “know” & relate to God. You cannot know God merely through your mind whether it be through science or any other means because the mind is relegated to the confines of the soul. Jesus said “That which is of the flesh IS flesh & that which is of the spirit IS spirit”. He also said that those who worship God MUST do so in SPIRIT & TRUTH.

This is the real problem experienced here-to-for. To “experience” God one must believe & be born “again” a second time . This means our spirit is made alive. It is only by this newly enlivened spirit that we can thus know & experience God because God is Spirit. To try to know God by any other means will be utterly useless & vain. What’s also interesting in Jesus’ statement about spirit & truth is that the truth He is referring to can also be translated as being “reality”. It is a reality that is not of this world, & cannot be known by this world & yet it is infinitely more profound & REAL because it is eternal ! You might could say that believers experience God in the reality of their spirit .

This explains why some of those here refer to Christianity as a myth or nonsense. It cannot be understood or grasped by the simple mind of man. God’s ways & God’s existence is far beyond the tiny dimension of a man. For you thinkers, you must surely be aware of the scientific fact that there exists dimensions which scientists confess they cannot explain or quantify.

I will say this however, for those of you who might be influenced to become a believer by some interesting scientific facts, you might want to check the following website ; khouse.org. Go to articles, then to technology. Or if this site doesn’t allow posting the website just look up the ministry of Chuck Missler. Chuck has shown through mathematical improbabilities & scientific realities that we could not have “arrived” through any other means then that by our God. I have to post a warning however, in that all the supposed evidence in the world could not make you believe & turn to God. This is an issue of each person’s individual heart. It is the inclination of the hearts of people which ultimately determine if you will believe & accept God or not. If so inclined, perhaps my words, or Chucks or some other person may help soften &/or move your heart to believe! I implore all atheists & agnostics to seek God, not so much with your mind but instead with your heart. The “truth” will set you free !

I just want to say that a relative of mine was instantly healed of cancer. You can choose whether you believe me or not, but you can in no way prove to me that there is no God. God bless, everyone!

"there were no worldwide floods with a magic boat saving all the animals in the world"
-I'm wondering if the issue is with the worldwide flood or the boat (which is not claimed to be magic...) Some have claimed that at one point, Mars was covered with water. Which looks sillier? (silly does not necessarily equal wrong)

"Science has and will continue to prove religion wrong. Science has proven that you cannot pray for rain, that the Sun is not a god and that the world is older than a few thousand years old."
-Well, you can still pray for rain, no one is stopping you... nope, the sun is not a god, good job science... I don't think that the discussion is closed on the age of the earth. Here's my version: "Religion has and will continue to prove science wrong. Religion has proven that the Hittites existed, that the Son is God and that the world is no older than a few thousand years old."

KUDOs Oakspar77777:
"If I go into a museum and see five similar paintings, there are two options: the theistic (all five were painted by the same artist) or the evolutionary (all five are from the same school, likely based on an art movement founded by some base artist).

Either are rational from merely observing the paintings. You can look at signatures, but they may be missing or fake. You can read the plaque beside them, but it may be false. The only way to KNOW (scientifically - empirically) is to have been there and observed them being painted."

People are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. Bashing people because they believe in God doesn't make you sound any smarter. I'm all for science, but I'm not going around saying how God doesn't exist.

Maybe you guys should check this out. A new book just came out and low and behold it gives us evidence of God, nature, and science, all wrapped up into one big ball.

It claims the Hebrew letters that were given to Moses on Mount Sinai that were recorded in the bible to be inscribed the the finger of God himself can be found to be produced from the units of growth found in nature. The author shows how ALL the Hebrews can be formed from a conch shell. I guess what it reveals is that there is "intelegent design" in the Hebrew letters that correlates through nature.

The book is called "The Primordial Lanuage" by author Anita Meyer.

I think all you scientists out there will now have to reconsider.