Carolinian

Issue date: 3/18/08 Section: Life

Media Credit: CAITLIN BONFIGLIO/THE CAROLINIAN

"You can believe that God gives knowledge to understand different things," says senior Melynda Byron. "Just because you study something doesn't mean you believe in it." Unfortunately, the idea is not as widespread as might be desired. While it is true that there has recently been greater acceptance of faith in the scientific community and vice-versa, there is still widespread animosity between the realms of beakers and Bibles.

Science has and always will be a part of the lives of human beings, and so will faith. Two ideas so important to the advancement of the human race were likely to find some point of contention, even though they were able to work in general harmony during the years before the Enlightenment. Carolus Linnaeus, for example, sought to order God's creation in designing the method of animal classification that we still use today.

In modern history, well-known scientists that openly professed their faith include Gregor Mendel, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein who is famously quoted as saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

These researchers seem to be the exception to the rule, however. According to a survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, over 60 percent of natural and social science professors surveyed classified themselves either as atheist or agnostic. About 30% of these professors answered "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out."

On the religious side, a major point of contention between faith and science came with the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. To the mind of a pure scientist, the idea of descent with modification, which later became known as the theory of evolution, explained everything that needed to be explained about the origin of man. To the mind of the religious leaders, the idea was delusional at best and heretical, removing God entirely from the picture, at worst.

And it has continued for the nearly 160 years since Darwin's publication in 1859, an assumption that science and God must be at odds with one another. A common idea held by religious leaders is the fact that evolution not only removes God from His role as Creator, but also as Judge. "People want to find a way to live without judgment when they die," says Megan Walley, a freshman. "They want man to be responsible to themselves and not to God."

Some religious leaders have sought to reconcile the schism between faith and science. In 1981 the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II spoke of the relationship between the two in this regard: "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer". Similarly, Thomas Jay Oord, a well-respected social scientist, theologian, and minister in the Church of the Nazarene seeks to rectify the argument between biology and faith says, "The Bible tells us how to find abundant life, not the details of how life became abundant."

The argument between faith and science is likely to go on throughout our lifetimes and far beyond. There are valid ideas on both sides, and no one is arguing that to be a scientist you must be an atheist. However, when the decision comes to following faith or following science, where does the scientist with faith fall? "People take things to the extreme and fail to 'compromise,'" says senior Jayce Cook. Perhaps that is the only way to see peace between the science and religion is to find a personal balance or agree to disagree.

Want to share a story about your faith? Email it to carolinian_life@yahoo.com

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools