Science And The Christian Paranoia

SCIENCE AND THE CHRISTIAN PARANOIA INTRODUCTION Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kenneth St Brice. By profession I practice as a Mechanical Engineer in the Petrochemical and formerly in the Oil and Gas sectors of Trinidad. I have spent approximately fifteen years of my life in this area. My credentials are a first degree in Mechanical Engineering and a second degree in Production and Engineering Management. These are my worldly qualifications. Apart from all of these I am a God fearing Christian with many more years practice. SUMMARY The issue on which I am about to dwell for the next few moments is possibly one of the most controversial and challenging issues within the realm of Christendom. Indeed as the world has progressed within the modern era to essentially a scientifically ordered domain, the Christian has found that several of many of what were considered traditional and foundational beliefs have become the subject of tremendous scrutiny and in many instances severe derision. The Christian has been placed under enormous pressure in his attempt to hold on to what has hitherto been considered kosher. In a world in which the scientists have held centre stage the Christian has become seriously marginalised by the increasing unpopularity of his belief. Traditional ideas such as the origin of man, the literal week of creation, the reality of a world-wide flood, the origin of the universe, the reality of God, the mortality/immortality issues of mankind have all been challenged. No 1

longer is anyone willing to accept the word of the Christian because as we put it, it is the ‘thus saith the Lord’. Science has created a more probing, doubting, cynical being who is in no way discomforted by the absence of a God in his life. He is quite willing to accept the challenges of life and explain the unknown in terms of natural circumstances. The arguments of science are many times unchallenged or perhaps unchallengeable due to the overwhelming burden of tangible evidence of credence afforded scientists in this era. One only has to look around to see the effect of the tremendous leaps that science has made particularly during the twentieth century. Need we go far? The very microphone, through which my voice is conveyed, converts these sounds to electrical signals that are once again converted to sound via the speakers that you hear. This is very evident testimony to the power of scientific discovery. Need we mention the lights above us, or the air conditioning system around us that provide the right ergonomic ambience for the room? Notice we have not even begun to delve into the wonders of the electronic age in which the only apparent limit to inventiveness is mans imagination. Need we go into the advances of space travel, or atomic physics or the structural wonders of our civil engineering and architectural geniuses or our ability to manufacture any conceivable material for use by mankind. Need I go on? It is quite apparent that from a point of view of tangible evidence, science as a profession has limitless arguments in its favour. On the other hand, what does the Christian bring to the table in his favour? Well, a very old, time worn book of secrets for which he believes all the answers to all the questions in the world may be found. He further advances that his belief is backed up by actual experience, which can be used as

2

tangible verification of his theories. Of course in a world of science, this form of subjective evidence is highly untenable. Essentially the Christian is presenting the case for maintenance of traditional thought in a world in which everything has been and continues to be changed. The challenge facing the modern Christian is how can he maintain constancy of thought in a world of new discovery and ever changing paradigms. Obviously this position will be maintained only against a strong tide to the contrary. The Christian then finds himself alienated further and further from the mainstream of conventional thought and what is considered vogue as far as the answers to the questions of great importance. The modern Christian therefore is faced with the serious threat of obsolescence, which has been the demise of so many scientific technologies which find themselves superseded by the rapidly advancing pace of scientific discovery. Against this background, what is the Christian to do? Well perhaps lets ask the other question what does the Christian do. The truth is there is no universal form of response that has been contrived by the Christian organisation to this dilemma. And so there is a very fractured response with a wide range of postures adopted throughout Christendom. The responses vary from: 1. Blissful Ignorance -

This is the position depicted by the Christian who determines that the controversies presented by science are of no interest to him. He will not hear of it. He certainly would not debate them. God says it; I believe it and that settles it.

2.Passive Concern

By this is depicted the Christian who listens to the controversies raised by science, determines that they are of some annoying concern but out of 3

breadth for answers is unable to suitably respond. He is thus left in a somewhat worrying state of existence and some harrowing doubt. 3.Active Engagement

-This is the posture adopted by the Christian who determines that the issues are of sufficient concern to warrant some delving into. He essentially attempts to dispassionately examine the issues in order to validate his belief system.

4.Partial Compromise

-This depicts the response that attempts to find room to accommodate the posturing of science such that some traditional territory is given in order to safely accommodate the two contrasting belief systems.

5.Complete Compromise This position depicts the response of the Christian who for all intents and purposes, completely modifies his belief system to accommodate the controversies brought about by Science. He maintains belief in God but not necessarily what is given as traditional concepts of God’s role in the world’s beginnings, present and future. In these circumstances, the individual who finds himself as a practitioner in both professions of science and Christianity finds himself at times torn between two apparent disagreeable masters. What is he to do? Does he then operate like the schizophrenic in two completely separate worlds and attempt to ignore the controversy? Does he adopt the ostrich like stance and

4

wait to till the problem goes away? For it certainly appears that to serve one is to condemn the other. THE ISSUES LIVE Let us for a while take a deeper look at the issues that present the major problems across the divide. I shall list these as follows: 1. The Origin of The Universe. 2. The Origin of Life on Earth. 3. The Age of The Earth. 4. The Presence of a Universal Flood. 5. The Ice Age 6. The Literal Week of Creation. I shall not attempt to go into the many ethical issues that pose similar challenges to Christianity as science wades into more and more new territory, invading domain that was hitherto held as cherished by Christians. ( By this, I refer to the many advances in the fields of biology, chemistry and genetic engineering.) History of the Problem Perhaps before we go into any detailed discussion of the specific issues, it may be useful to examine for awhile, the history of the problem. Take your minds back to the period of the 11th to the 14th century. This can be considered the era around which what is considered modern science began. The Catholic Church is the predominant moving force in all aspects of life and development. But the teachings of the church rest heavily on the works of Augustine. It turns out that Augustine’s work is not helpful to the 5

advancement of science. Consequently scientific advancement is dependent on developments in the Arab and African worlds. By virtue of the Crusades, the Catholic world was brought into contact with the Arab world. Rather than there being broad submission to the teachings of the authority of the clergy, the Church discovers that there is much independence of thought due to the influx of new literature and manuscripts from the conquered territory. Study of Aristotle’s teachings are renewed. In an attempt to stave off the potential effect of the breeding of rationalistic views within its domain, the Church after initially condemning Aristotle concedes to accept his work under their own interpretations. Thomas Aquinas becomes the major advocate of Catholic Aristotlelianism. His major argument is the ‘reason must be subordinate to faith and philosophy subordinate to theology’. In due course, this dualism is modified to the point that a new doctrine is developed which essentially purports that it is possible for a man to accept both science and religion as long as his belief in science does not threaten the authority of the Church and its teachings. It should be noted that science at this point in time is limited to a very few fields such as alchemy, astrology, medicine and a little mathematics. Perhaps of foremost mention at this point in time is the famous astronomer and mathematician Galileo who was forced to recant what is today very basic acceptable scientific fact. Galileo perhaps best represents the status of the conflict at this point in time in history as his conflict and condemnation by the Church are very well known. It is generally acknowledged among historians that the Galileo scandal perhaps represented a turning point – a

6

hardening of the fronts in this great conflict of faith and reason. Another character of significant mention in this period was Sir Isaac Newton.

Origin of The Universe Science has propounded a range of theories as to what might be the origin of the universe. The entire field of study, cosmology, seeks to address this issue. In 1922, Alexander Friedmann in an attempt to produce a solution to Einstein’s equations of general theory of relativity, postulated that the universe began in a state of very high density and high temperature, not unlike the situation of a black hole. The superdense, superhot “primordial atom” exploded, producing the “ primordial fireball” – the Big Bang, which is today one of the foremost theories advanced regarding the origin of the universe. Friedmann suggests that at the time of the Big Bang, the temperature would have been about 100 billion degrees Kelvin and all energy was in the form of radiation. Within a fraction of a second, the expanding universe had cooled enough for some of that energy to be converted to matter. Within a fraction of a second, protons, neutrons and electrons were being formed. In essence, as the expansion continued with resultant cooling, more complex matter was formed resulting in the formation of neutral hydrogen atoms after 100,000 years and 1000 deg Kelvin and eventually with galaxies beginning to form after 100 million years.

7

Of course the position taken by the majority of Science as far as this issue is concerned stands directly counter to traditional Christian thought. While it may not necessarily dispute the idea of a Universe that is in excess of 15 billion years old, it is certainly not tenable that the Universe began with a Big Bang. It is the case that the Christian church in general offers no counter theory to cosmological suggestions as to its beginnings. Christendom essentially holds to the position, ‘In the beginning, God’ This is not a theory but simply a firmly held position. Unfortunately though this kind of stance is given no credence among the bulk of the scientific community. In fact, to take that kind of stance is looked upon as the popular ostrich-like posture of putting one’s head in the sand. So, we are left with two (2) camps in disagreement on the issue. Origin of Life on Earth This is perhaps THE most controversial area that separates the scientific community from the Christian community. Traditionally through the centuries, the scientific community adopted the position, no doubt driven by religious influences that species were for all intents fixed. The first inclination to change was initiated by Buffon in 1755 who was concerned with the close lines of separation between particular species. While he was for all intents a creationist, his writings led to the suggestion of evolutionary thought. This was followed by Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of the now famous Charles Darwin who suggested that all warm- blooded animals arose from one living filament. Work from Jean Baptiste de Lamark represented the first complete theory of organic evolution.

8

The real leap forward in the concept of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life came from Charles Darwin. Darwin, a former ministerial student, summarised his observations as a naturalist in his book Origin of Species. The book found ready acceptance within a scientific community that was beginning to have serious misgivings with traditional explanations given for the origin of life on earth as well as the earth’s age. It also coincided with new developments in the geosciences that were beginning to point in the direction of uniformarianism versus delusionist concept of earth’s history. While there was some reaction against Darwin and his theory, first among Christians and as well as fellow scientists, in general the church’s response to Darwin was based more on dogma than scientific argument. They were thus largely outmanoeuvred and unable to match the well-organised scientific proposals of the evolutionists. In essence the theory of evolution postulates that

The Age of the Earth This is another contentious issue that has continued to raise hairs among the Christian community. Traditional Christian thought places the earth at roughly six thousand years. This is largely based on Biblical revelation, which essentially comprises of the computation of history via the revealed genealogies in the Bible. This position as adopted by conservative Christians has come under tremendous pressure Due to the modern day scientific development, the traditional position held by Christians through the years has been under scrutiny. Scientists have 9

advanced a range of methods by which they conclude that the age of the earth is significantly longer than the Christian advanced age of 6000 years. Among the methods employed are: Analysis of lay down layers within the earth’s crust. In addition to this, tree ring analysis or dendrochronology, has been used with success to date back to about 3000 years. The method though which has been advanced as a means of dating has been the carbon 14 method which has been used to determine time up to 50,000 years ago. Other radioactive substances such as uranium- lead and potassium – argon have been used to tell the earth’s’ history up to several million years. In principle what radiometric dating suggests is that based on the fact that radioactive substances have a particular and known ‘half life’ of decay then in principle this known unit of time can be a tool in calculating the age of material. This is based upon laboratory tests, which have shown that this tine period is consistent for the material. As a consequence the relative existence of parent or undecayed material along with radioactively decayed material can be used to calculate the age of the material in question. These methods of dating have created lot of stir among creationists leading some of them to adopt compensatory positions such as the gap and the dayage methods of interpreting Genesis 1. On the other hand the radiometric dating method has not been without controversy. In the first instance it is founded upon one major singular assumption and that is that radioactive decay has been consistent or uniform throughout the history of the world. It is not possible to conclusively prove this in a laboratory since what is required is time and specific conditions. This is a position, which has been shown to be flawed by some researchers (Ref. ). Further to this there have been numerous instances in which radiometric dating has proved to be inconsistent even when used for dating 10

different parts of the same material. (E.g. Muscle tissue from a mummified musk ox found a at Fairbanks Creek has a radioactive (Carbon 14) age of 24,000 years while the hair from the hind limb of the carcass shows an age of 7,200 years.) Cases such as these abound leaving the concept of radiometric dating in some measure of doubt. In general the Christian creationist counter-argument to the concept of the old earth theory as advanced by modern scientists is that the whole concept of the old earth is flawed since it is founded upon uniformity in the earth’s’ history. To make the point clearer, creationists point to the flood as a juncture in time in which significant alterations to the earth’s environment and general status quo would have occurred. Consequently the concept of the delusion would stand in direct contrast to the uniformity required by scientists for their old earth dating methods. The Universal Flood. The issue of the Flood also presents another challenging area for Christians. The Flood is held by Christians to be a major turning point in earth’s history and the juncture in time which precipitated a number of significant changes in the earth’s environment. So that the antidiluvian conditions are accepted as significantly altered by the impact of the Universal Flood producing postdiluvian conditions that are almost unrelated. But to be honest, the debate over the Flood arises from the first question of whether it really occurred. Many, and this includes fellow Christians, hold to the view that the Flood is really a mythical parable which is really only intended to demonstrate the power of God and that He takes sin seriously. Moving from this debate, the alternative position taken by others relative to the flood story is that there really was a flood except that it was local. 11

However the authors of the flood story were on the receiving end of a hugely exaggerated story which grew by the time of their writing into a world-wide flood. But in reality no such flood occurred. This second issue has been where the major debate has rested on the Flood Story. Proponents of a Universal Flood have argued that the Bible is very clear in its meaning and the flood referred to could only be understood to have been world-wide. Let us quickly review some of these arguments and counter arguments. 1. Universalists use Gen. 7:19,20 which reads “All the high mountains

under the entire heavens were covered, The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.” This it is argued is sufficient proof that it must be a world-wide flood being referred to, since waters twenty feet above the highest mountains would necessarily cover the entire earth. The counter-argument suggests that Noah being a man of the plains, “high mountains” here probably referred to the hills and mountains in his direct vicinity. Certainly not to the mountain ranges of the Caucasus or even less likely the Himalayas. In other words the text was referring to issues within Noah’s experience. The issue of the runoff rate required also comes up for debate here. According to one author, if the flood indeed covered what is today known as Mt Ararat, (17,000 ft), then a huge runoff rate of 52.5 feet per day is required. Advance the argument to Mt Everest and the issue becomes even more challenging (twice so). It has also been argued that if the Genesis Flood is to be taken literally (that is to cover the highest mountains), then the amount of water

12

contained would be about eight times as much water as the earth presently supports. Question is where did all the water go to. 2. Another argument presented is that the geological impact of the Flood implies its universality. In other word “the springs of the great deep” bursting forth suggest massive geological upheavals on a world-wide scale. Further, the observable stratigraphic phenomena find satisfactory explanation in a universal deluge. It is further asserted (Ellen White inclusive) that the deposits of oil, coal and gas arose by virtue of buried organic deposits arising from a universal flood. This view is not generally supported within the geological fraternity but is an interesting one to note. 3. No discussion of the Flood is of course complete without some reflection on the animals. Was it eight people and a few animals from the Near East in a Local Flood? or was it tens of thousands of animals (including insects whose species we now know to number over 800,000) included in the ark? The obvious questions arise such as how did they get from their distant habitats over the world to the ark? Once in the ark, how could a mere eight people take care of them? How could those eight people or for that matter even a larger group, support the varied diets and environments required for such a group? This could prove to be a serious ecological challenge. (Preys and Predators in the same ark). 4. In general therefore, it is clear that the issue of the Flood poses significant challenges for Christians not only in terms of the scientific discussion but as to its very existence and form.

13

The Ice Age Not much time would be spent on this particular issue. However it is worth discussing for awhile since it in essence represents the Scientific alternative to the Biblical notion of the Flood. The Ice Age like many other geological theories finds its roots in an attempt to explain observed features in the formation of the earth’s surface. Rock formations such as the Grand Canyon and numerous other sites throughout North America and Europe are allegedly created by virtue of the action of extensive glaciers which would have occurred in the last instance about 2.5 million years ago. This is supposed to have been one of many such occurrences throughout earth’s history. The cause of the Ice Ages is twofold. The earth and its solar system are located asymmetrically within one limb of the Milky Way galaxy. The galaxy completes one rotation every 300 million years. It is proposed that through this rotation, the earth is taken through varying density regions and magnetic fields which may have the effect of varying the solar system’s galactic environment and possibly earth’s climate. The additional phenomena that postulated to contribute to the glacial growth in the earth is that of continental drift. Theory has it that the shifting of the continents produced the effect of blocking the normal flows of the ocean’s currents, producing new directions which allowed for cold currents to circle the globe. The combination of these phenomena produced the favourable conditions for the formation of significant glaciers, which covered substantial sections of North America and Europe. An interesting issue which arises within the Ice Age discussion is the phenomena of the precession cycle. It is proposed that while today the 14

earth’s axis is aligned with the Pole star, it was not always that way. As a consequence approximately 11,000 years ago the axis orientation was aligned in a way to give the northern and southern hemispheres much colder winters and intense droughts in the subtropics. The Literal Week of Creation This is the final issue that I shall raise before attempting to sum up. Traditional Christianity holds to the view that God created the earth in six (6) literal days as depicted in the Bible Creation story. Largely on account of the pressures brought about by the scientific community in terms of the understanding of the beginnings, many Christians have gone away from this traditional stance to a variation of postures that attempt to accommodate the new information provided by the scientists. Chief among these positions are: 1. The Day Age Theory. This position when defined essentially suggests that God did in fact create the earth but not in six literal days but six rather undefined periods or ages. Another variation on the theme is that there were six literal days of creation but that there were substantial time periods between them. The day age theory has largely fallen apart since in spite of creating substantial time for the advancing scientific knowledge, it does not provide good correlation to the proposed sequence of events put forward by the proponents of geological theory. 2. The Gap Theory The gap theory is again another attempt by Christians to find common ground with scientific theory. In effect what the gap theory states is that there is a gap between Genesis 1 and 3. 15

In verse 1 God created. In verse 2 there was destruction and ruin as a result of Lucifer’s intervention. This left a substantial period of time with the earth formless and void. In verse 3 God once again begins His creative process which is done in six(6) literal days. This debate is essentially a theological debate but arises only because theologians were forced to find room to accommodate advancing scientific thought. This like the day age theory falls on its face in that it does not make sufficient accommodation to facilitate the full breadth of scientific endeavour. 3. Progressive Creation The idea of progressive creation in simple terms simply attempts to put God at the beginning of the evolutionary and geological development periods. God is credited with formulating the concept of the outcomes desired, He pronounces and the process commences resulting in the eventual products of His mind emerging after endless ages of formation, survival and destruction. This is another clear attempt to merge the two fields in the most accommodating way possible. CONCLUSIONS At this time, it would be useful to collect all of the ideas advanced and attempt to make some reasonable position out of them. I would first of all look into the issues that have been advanced and determine the weight of the relative arguments advanced.

16

We would then attempt to examine the overall issues to see whether we can arrive at a realistic position that can be adopted by Christians in light of all the factors considered. Let us step aside for awhile and examine what lies at the core of these issues. 1. We established at the beginning that scientific advance within the modern are was responsible for the debate that now is. The strength that science has attained has been due in large measure to the overwhelming weight of evidence provided by scientific discovery. 2. If we go back to the beginnings of modern science however we would note that the individuals that stand at the forefront are personalities such as Copernicus who laid the foundations of modern astronomy, Tycho Brahe who was another great observer. Kepler followed in this vein with his contributions to the laws of planetary motion. Also of outstanding mention in this list are Galileo who was followed in the year that he died by the birth of Sir Isaac Newton whose brilliance was responsible for what we now know are the laws of gravitation. 3. The common factor in these men was that they verified their theories with mathematical deductions and observable fact. Not only did they hold to valid scientific methods but also they recognized their limitations, and in humility accepted God as Sovereign of the Universe. 4. The year following the death of Newton saw the entrance of speculative methods of science. I wish for you to note the phrase ‘SPECULATIVE SCIENCE’ for this phrase lies at the core of our discussion. 17

5. Science has gained significant credence arising not from its

wonderings into nature but ONLY because it has been able to tangibly prove its theories and more than that translate those theories into workable solutions to mans everyday problems (This is engineering). Let us say resoundingly here that ‘TRUE SCIENCE’, another term to note, must always be able to support its postulations with facts that are observable, testable and repeatable. It is important that we provide a clear distinction between these two aspects of science. 6. As we examine a lot of the issues raised here today as controversies , it becomes abundantly clear that there is an aspect of science that is fraught with inspired guesses and very creative imaginations. 7. Let us look briefly again at the most accepted explanation for The Origin of the Universe. The Big Bang is a clear case of a very active imagination at work. There is absolutely no way that Alexander Friedmann could know for sure that his theory of the Universe’s beginning are at all correct. There is simply no way to prove it. No amount of complex mathematical speculations can PROVE the reality of the Big Bang. The problem of course that science faces is the fact that it has to provide an answer to the issue of the Universe’s beginning. However, unlike the early fathers of science, modern science is unable to admit an explanation to God. Testimony to the limitations that we face as humans trying to explain a universe with our limited understanding of earth’s physical laws is aptly demonstrated in the recent space sojourn of the Voyager spacecraft.

18

Having sojourned to as far as Saturn, the observations sent back to earth regarding the activity around this planet with its many moons and rings, it became abundantly clear that conventional understandings of physics could not provide answers to the observations made. Science if it is true, MUST admit its own limitations when they are apparent. 8. In examining the issue of the Origin of Man, it is apparent that here again speculation is rife. Moving up the theoretical evolutionary ladder, one is greeted by imagination at every rung. There have been numerous logical, mathematical arguments that have been developed to show the inherent weaknesses of the traditional evolutionary discourse. Time would not allow us the freedom to explore these here and now. Evolutionists would have you believe that their theory stands on sound footing but throughout the length and breadth of this theory there are inconsistencies. The missing DNA sequence data, substantial gaps in the fossil record, the absence of data to support links between land and sea mammals. According to Ayala and Valentine’s text, Evolving (1979), ‘many elements of the phylogeny of the homonids are conjectural (guesswork, fantasy) owing to the paucity of the fossil remains. Paleantropologist Robert Blumenschine of Rutgers University said in a US News and World Report, “The real question is whether we have enough imagination to reconstruct their lives (the lives of early humans). Micheal Lemonick of Time concurs saying in his article “How Man Began” (1994) “The only certainty in this datapoor, imagination rich, endlessly fascinating field is that there are plenty of surprises left to come.” 19

However it must be abundantly clear that while the theory cannot be proven, in similar fashion, it cannot be disproven. This is because the same evidence that is required to prove is also absent to disprove. 9. The Age of the Earth, another key issue falls down on the basis of the fact that its soundest argument ‘radiometric dating’ is based on an argument that also cannot be proven. The theory of uniformity is a major assumption to be made. If one hangs on to the idea of a anti and post diluvian contrast in the earth’s conditions then it is clearly feasible that nonuniformity would have been introduced by that dramatic change of circumstances. Further, even in the absence of a universal catastrophe such as the Flood, it still is not possible to prove conclusively the consistency of radioactive decay and the concept of maintenance of the material ‘half life’. That would still require substantial periods of time to be proven. 10.The presence of a Universal Flood, presents some challenges to the Christian since some of the issues come up without answers that are satisfactory. The question is, what then. Let me suggest that we examine what science does when in doubt. Everyone of the major controversial issues that are advanced by science have serious areas of doubt. What does science do? They maintain course, knowing that it may not be possible to prove or for that matter disprove many of its notions. To the Christian therefore I say, every aspect of the Flood story may not hold to a logical argument but that is because: 1. We are not in receipt of all the facts. 20

2. It would take a measure of faith to hold on to what may be unknown. 3. We have to concede that while we may use humanly devised logic to try to explain what is known, it is quite possible that the logic defying God that we serve can supersede all of our understandings of how physical phenomena occurred. 4. The other issue of course that remains is, what if the flood was not universal, what then? If Noah’s Flood were a local rather than a universal one, it would still not be of any impact to the basic tenets of faith. It would affect our argument regarding the effect of the flood on earth’s environment, which is the direct counter to uniformarianism. 11.

The Ice Age If ever one is tempted to be concerned about the tenability of a Universal Flood, then the scientific argument of the Ice Age is cause for comfort. This theory is as speculative as they come. Try to combine the galactic rotations with the phenomena of continental drift and it is clear that this theory must be in deep trouble. It is important to consider it though since many of the same observations that are generally explained by creationists as being based on the Flood, are explained by science as being based on the Ice Age.

11.The Literal Week of Creation This issue is feverishly argued in many quarters but again since no one can disprove that the week of creation was anything but literal, 21

there should be no cause for discomfort among Christians who hold to this view. Compromise solutions such as the gap theory, the day-age theory or progressive creation do no real good in seeking middle ground since as demonstrated earlier, compromise solutions still do not satisfy the full demands of speculative science. One either has to be fully on board or not at all. WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO In summing up therefore let us conclude by saying that as we examine the issues, it is clear a line must be drawn between the fields of speculative science and what for the purposes of our discussion we will term true science. When one does that it becomes clear that the issues that are at the heart of the Christian/Science conflict are in fact ALL from the arena of Speculative Science. Christianity has never had a problem with developments in the area of neuroscience or electronics or civil engineering or space travel or any of these areas. At the same time it is also apparent that the strength that science has derived within modern times has come not from its speculative arena but from the arena that has been able to make sound discoveries and translate them into human progress. The methods employed by the speculative scientists could never be successfully applied in this technological arena. You certainly do not want the aircraft engineer constructing the next Boeing aircraft that you fly in being unsure of what happened to the mechanical linkages in the landing gear. Or for that matter neglecting the fact that data was 22

missing in his calculations for the structural design of the aircraft wing. What would happen if civil engineers took the approach that it didn’t matter too much whether all of the structural members in the bridge were either sized or put in place accurately and according to plan. Many of us would end our lives in the rivers and seas of this world. The point is simply this; you cannot class the speculative methods of one branch of science with the rigourous, ultraconservative, overbearingly accurate approach that is used in another arena of science. And essentially what has happened is that one field has largely piggy backed on the other for importance, coming under that same label. For our purposes we need to disabuse our minds of these notions and as we say separate the sheep from the goats. When this is done it would become abundantly clear that the issues that we face as Christians are not so much with science as with scientific speculators who while they play an important role in the overall scheme of things, definitely do not stand on the same solid ground that has been attributed to the rest of science, what for our discussions we are calling, true science.

23