Is Science Consistent with Religion?

One example is creation.  As a physicist I cannot accept the one-week version.  Scientific evidence suggests that our planet is about four and a half billion years old.  And, evidence from meteorites suggest other solid objects in the solar system are about the same age.  The sun is just slightly older.  And the stars in the night sky are, in many cases, older still.

Yet, I have no problem believing that matter did not just spring into existence without Divine intervention.  So, I believe the world was created, just not in a week.  Indeed, the matter used to make the sun and the Earth probably was created in the instant these bodies came to be.

Some years back I was addressing this, and a student objected claiming the ages of the Earth and sun being taught violated her religious beliefs.  So, facts being facts, she would have found an inconsistency in science and religion, yet I see no conflict.

Did the sun really stand still, then change directions?   Technically, an impact by a large enough asteroid or comet could cause this to happen, but other things would have followed.  Such an impact would have been an extinction event, and wiped out most of life on earth.  So, scientifically speaking it probably did not happen, but its role in the significance in the story remains a valid point.  It is used to make a point, not as an historical fact.

This goes back to the creation story.  Did God literally create man, then the animals?  Dinosaurs are inconsistent with this.  What is important is that God created life, and created man with free will.  Did God use an existing animal and infuse free will when He created an immortal soul for the first man?  Well, that is the kernel of the belief many of us cm embrace, yet a fundamentalists will adamantly proclaim man is from clay. 

I know quite a few scientists, and many are religious.  It seems scientists who are atheists or agnostics get the attention, yet many scientists accept creation and God as its cause.  Something other than nature had to start things.  Even the big bang, if it happened, would not have been possible without the massive object that exploded into the universe having been created.

Much has been made of the discovery of the Higgs boson, and it is often called the god-particle.  Its discovery helps greatly with understanding gravity.  So, some atheist scientists have proclaimed we have no need for God.   How do they explain where the Higgs boson itself originated?  It, by its nature, is testimony that God exists.

There is the case of Galileo.  The case appeared to be a conflict, but there was no challenge to dogma.  People, including Catholic Church leaders, thought his findings were in conflict with religion.  But, the conflict was with what people thought, not official doctrine.  This allowed a reconciliation, and the scientist was vindicated. 

The Catholic Church’s claim that the Pope in infallible was not an issue.  The principle of infallibility applies only to matters of faith and morals, and only when the Pope declares the statement is so.  Even the Pope has a right to a personal opinion, and unless he makes the proclamation official it does not carry infallibility. 

Here, it was how people thought God had constructed the universe that caused the problem.  We must remember God for Hs own reasons retains some mystery.  Man in this world cannot full understand God, so how and why the universe is as it is remains known only to Him.

Today, astronomy and the Catholic Church are often in accord.

First there is a diversion in basic teachings among religions.  So, we will not all agree.

Second, there is a vanity among some scientists who would like to themselves be as great as God, so claims that we no longer need God to make sense of thing are made.  But, looking deeper, they cannot explain where the fundamentals originated.

Arguing is futile, since participants do not start with the same hypotheses.  Of course there is often good will at the core of such arguments.  The participants are convinced their point of view is correct, and they wish to convert the other person, or at least help the other person properly understand.  The intentions are good, and often this is true on both sides.  So, unless someone has expressed an openness to understand your point of view these arguments are usually futile.

This article contains links to affiliate programs from some or all of Amazon, Zazzle, Viglink, and Ebay through Viglink, and Adsense advertising.  These must use cookies to allow for proper crediting.

The introduction image is of one of our products on Zazzle, and we own the rights to the image used in creating the product.