books everywhere

God, the Bible, Christianity, and Science … from a non-scientist’s point of view

I’m not a scientist, so you can relax and not expect an explanation of molecular theory here. I can be logical, at times, so my intention here is simply to look at what is reasonable to believe. What makes the most sense?

Many ask questions about balancing what we know to be true through scientific research and what we hear/read to be true because the Bible says it. These are really fair questions that deserve honest interaction, discussion, and, if possible, answers. Do science and faith in God contradict?

The biblical account begins with creation by God out of nothing. He spoke and everything eventually came into being. Did it happen in six 24-hour periods? Does that mean the world is only a few thousand years old? Maybe. Maybe not. The point of starting, “In the beginning God …” is to declare there is a God behind it all. An eternal being made it happen. Since we know that something doesn’t come from nothing, a law of logic says, “If something now exists, there must be something eternal.” The key point of Genesis 1 is the “Who,” rather than the “How.” The message is that there is a God behind it all; he had a plan; what he created was good. The fact that the Bible says it doesn’t necessarily make it true, of course. It is, however, the message of the book.

Years ago, a friend challenged my God-centered thinking, saying, “You look at things from a faith perspective. I look at them from a science perspective.” I responded by asking if the scientific method was to offer an hypothesis, to run tests, then observe, record, and repeat. Then I suggested we look at evolutionary theory and asked if anyone had ever observed, recorded, or repeated something coming from nothing. “No,” he answered. I proposed we jump further out into the cycle. “Has anyone ever observed, recorded, or repeated one species turning into another?” He answered, “No,” and added, “You got me.” I replied, “All I got was that both of us are operating on a faith basis. You can’t prove your point of view beyond a shadow of a doubt and neither can I. Now we’re left to ask what’s most reasonable to believe?”

Also years ago, an atheist suggested mathematics could explain everything. I asked why mathematical theory and practice work. “Does that which is random, accidental, and purposeless produce repetitive and quantifiably consistent results? Does time plus chance plus change produce the laws of nature and science?” Perhaps, but again, is that likely?

Stephen Hawking is recorded as saying, “One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, but science makes God unnecessary.” Interestingly, in one of his last books he repeated several times, “We can’t prove [this theory], but we know it’s true.” Isn’t that the accusation science-leaning friends bring against those of us who believe in a God?

God-followers readily acknowledge the role of faith in our lives. Isn’t it reasonable to ask the same of our scientific friends? The point is the conversation, isn’t it? Believers in God aren’t fools for their belief. Skeptics aren’t fools for theirs. Each of us should approach the other with respect and a willingness to hear the other side. Let’s let the evidence lead to the most reasonable conclusion.

Share this post

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Share on print
Share on email

Want to Know How You Can Get Involved?
Select Below and We’ll Get You Plugged in.

I want to...

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.