In my undergrad studies of Mechanical Engineering is where my deep interest in astronomical sciences really developed. If time and money allowed, I would go back to school to obtain my PHD in astrophysics and astronomy but since that is not a current option I’ve resorted to reading journals and articles and book and papers. I’ve been reading many articles lately on scientific findings and discoveries. The overwhelming feeling I get when reading many of the articles (especially the ones dealing with the origins of the universe) is that the data is twisted to support the preconceived conclusion. You may already be thinking “YEAH! Get those silly atheists!” However, I’m talking about the scientific articles written by Christians.
The problem with scientists (both atheists and Christians) is that their beliefs cloud their findings. Each side is guilty of observing a particular phenomenon and immediately seeking to fit the data to “prove” their conclusion. Yes, creation scientists do this as well. It baffles me that the ancient claim has always been “atheists have a preconceived conclusion that there isn’t a God and all their findings are bent to make sure God is never the conclusion” but Christians turn around and do the same thing to make sure their view of creation IS the conclusion even if it means to bend the data.
I have no problem with science. Many Christians pick fights with science and that isn’t the battle they want to have. God created science and all the laws of nature. I would label him as the first scientist (He just doesn’t have to test His hypothesis). I don’t want to get into a debate of the timeline of creation or the origin of the universe but I’ve heard too many people that lean to a certain creationist belief state that all science is bad and is just twisted to provide a platform for evolution. I whole heartily disagree. Now, the science isn’t the problem. The scientist is; on both sides.
Many Creationists love to say that Albert Einstein was a Christian and believed in God. Actually, he was in fact an agnostic and was very critical of the belief in a personal God. In the early 20th century he developed the theories of relativity.
If we were to let science and nature speak for itself what would happen? Psalm 19:1 would happen. Again I’m not about to get into a deep discussion about evolution vs. creation but the overwhelming evidence for a Creator is observable science. Let’s take Einstein’s equation for a second. The left side of the equation represents acceleration and if we step back and just take a look at the fine details it tells us that the universe is experiencing negative acceleration. The Bible, other equations, and many discoveries reveal that the universe is also expanding (Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 42:5). An explosion is an occurrence where we see negative acceleration and expansion all in one… Big Bang anyone? The interesting thing is that as Einstein contemplated the Big Bang he did not like the implications. He realized that the Big Bang implied a beginning and thus the existence of a creator so he spent many years modifying the equation to give us the cosmological constant. Even Einstein was “fudging” data to suit his conclusions. Interesting that even something that is by many tied to “atheistic science” was realized by Einstein to require the existence of a creator. Something about letting science and nature speak for itself. Romans 1 give us a pretty good outline of things as well.
So the point? I guess my point is that Christian and secular scientists make the same mistake. They don’t follow the scientific method. They determine the conclusion and wonder how their data can prove it. Instead, if everyone would take a very good look at the data we may actually see what God intended us to see all along. Him.
Coffee, Theology, and Jesus 