timeimmortal

Erf writes in concerning my article on the new book by Christoph Schönborn, Chance or Purpose.

Very well said, Ken. As a scientist myself this has always been something I’ve given a lot of thought to.

Science tells us about how the universe works. It tells us about what God created. It reveals the beauty. And it lets us work with it ourselves, echoing the role of creator in our own work. Religion tells us why, to some degree, and more importantly it tells us what to do with this wondrous creation God has made and given over to us to take care of. It tells us how to live, and what that means.

You might be interested in an article from a recent issue of Physics in Canada, called “On the Nature of Science”. Byron K. Jennings (from TRIUMF!) goes into great detail on what science actually does, and tries to do; he explains what scientists mean by a “theory”, and why all of science is open to correction and updating but that doesn’t make it wrong. And yes, he addresses Intelligent Design, showing just why it has nothing to do with science at all. You can find the article for free at arXiv.org, the Physics preprint server.

I do think that there’s a massive feedback cycle between the people writing these atheist tracts like The God Delusion and anti-science religious fundamentalists
Basically one side says “religion proves science is meaningless” and the other says “no, science proves religion is meaningless” and off they go. The truth, as is so often the case, is much more interesting.

Very much so. I wholeheartedly agree that both the fundamentalists and the militant atheists have it wrong in their assertions, although at least most of the atheists have the science right (it is just the theology and the metaphysical conclusions they draw that are incorrect).

Regrettably, the fundamentalists rarely have either the science or the theology right — at least, not to any decent degree. On the plus side, this makes them easier to put in their rightful place on the fringes of the discussion. On the negative side, this makes militant atheists who should likewise be consigned to the fringes seem the more reasonable by comparison, and so gives undue attention and weight to what they are saying.

In your second paragraph, you actually echo Galileo almost perfectly. In his letter to Christina, the famed astronomer — whose faith in Christ and God never wavered, despite the many mistakes the Church made in its handling of his discoveries — remarked that the Bible was meant to tell one how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.

I think that’s a very good picture of what has been called, by others, the “Two Books” approach to science and Religion…that to obtain the fullest understanding of anything, we have to interpret it through the two avenues of revelation that God has given to us: the revelation through His Words (as given in Scripture), and the revelation through His Works (”natural revelation”, or that which science can demonstrate and discover).

(It’s not really a plug for ID when I remark on a concept like natural revelation, either — I’m simply echoing Scripture when I note that God’s glory is supposed to be revealed in Creation.)

Finally, thanks for identifying a 1000-character limit in the contact form. I’ve increased the limit ten-fold now. And yes, I saw that missed italic closing tag, and have corrected it. Thanks again!

~ by Kenneth on January 16, 2008.