Week Six: The Scientific Age
Big thanks to Michael and Roger for pinch-hitting for me this past week as I was out sick. Thanks to science and modern medicine, I'm coursing with antibiotics at the moment and feeling improved. Speaking of science...well, since I wasn't there, I'll let Michael sum up from his email dated November 2nd:
I was not aware (as I'm sure the rest of America too) that many of the scientists and teachers of the 17th century were Christians or acknowledged Biblical principles in their respective fields. Here's a golden nugget that I constantly remind people about regarding evolution: The earth is not old enough for evolution to have reached its course in its present state. Another excellent point is the lack of integrity in Western science and experiments today. If science in America and Europe is not corrupt it is certainly subjective and manipulative. Last but not least are the ethical issues in science today that have not been fully addressed and resolved: Artifical insemination, cloning, population control. Yet science continues to move forward in these areas rather unwisely, all in the name of progress. (Funny, science has yet to treat the common cold and other viruses yet they are moving forward in other areas where "angels may fear to tread".) How our society must be informed!
Thanks, Michael!
Science vs. theology, medical ethics, evolution vs. creation...these topics could each take up a course all their own. Ultimately, though, they involve the conflict between those who use science as a way to study God's creation and those who would elevate science to a religion all its own, consciously or not. Coincidentally, this week's cover story in Time magazine is "God vs. science: Can religion pass the test?" (sorry, the link's only a brief summary for non-subscribers).
You know what the great thing is about looking at this conflict? True science supports Biblical truth. We may hear some very convincing arguments that run counter to God's Word, but in the end God created all that is and allows us to study and enjoy it. We'll never understand it all completely but no alternate explanation will ever be without holes large enough to float an Ark through. Incidentally, if you're interested in some scholarly but "faithful" analysis of space, evolution, creation...even UFOs...check out some of Hugh Ross' works.
As we apply the findings of science, we must be careful to make science subject to our faith. Without it, we have no moral basis, as Dr. Schaeffer describes. The expedient, utilitarian route becomes the "moral" choice. One tragic example of this is the dramatic reduction in cases of Down syndrome around the world. No, that's not quite correct--it's the dramatic reduction in babies born with Down syndrome. In the U.S., more than 80% of babies prenatally testing positive for Down syndrome are aborted. Even more tragic is the fact that the tests used have a 3-8% false positive rate. Not only are people aborting unborn children who have Down syndrome but they're taking out so-called "normal" children, too, just to be safe.
For the sake of discussion, what are your thoughts on artificial insemination, donating eggs and sperms, etc.? This fast-growing (and lucrative) area of medicine seems to have gotten little critical thought in the public sphere. We debate stem cell research, but the practice of getting pregnant through extraordinary means, the practice that gives us all those confounding embryos, has largely gotten a pass. Thoughts?
Tune in next week for The Age of Non-Reason. In the meantime, don't forget to vote on Tuesday!
posted by Nate at 12:05 PM
2 Comments:
Quick fly-by from work -
I know the science vs. religion argument is classic one, but in some ways we have moved beyond it already.
Because we've regulated religion/faith as something to do privately and which has no bearing on real life (especially in the public square), the question of whether they are in conflict is no longer even considered to have value. You can have both and they don't need to be in conflict. Science and reason are what we use in day to day living. Faith is something you're free to do in the privacy of your home. There is no conflict, as long as you don't dare to bring your religion out of your home and claim it has anything to do with Real Life, for yourself and certainly not for others!
This is even more dangerous than trying to compare and argue the merits of each. It makes faith, any religion) about as relevant and realistic as the Easter Bunny. It is something to bring comfort in times of trouble, (especially for people who are 'weak') but it is nothing that intelligent and reasonable people actually think has any basis in fact.
And the minute you try and show that the Christian faith does have a basis in fact, you are dismissed. People won't even hear you out.
Good point. Though science is still used to try to discredit and diminish religion and faith, relativism rules the day. We'll get into that in the Age of Non-Reason where logic is abandoned and contradictions are allowed to co-exist.
It's kind of interesting. Schaeffer, and historians in general, like to break things up into "ages," but we see elements of many of these ages in our own time. It is as though we are in a post-Christian pileup.
Post a Comment
<< Home