* It is commonly believed that religion and science are mutually exclusive concepts, and there is no way for them to coexist. I believe that recent scientific discoveries have actually done much to reinforce the concept of intelligent design, and that religion and science will continue to develop until they are not only fully supportive of each other, but also indistinguishable from each other. Scientific discussions usually involve the use of deductive proofs, while religious topics usually utilize inductive methods to infer their conclusions. In Logic: An Introduction, Mosser states that “A deductive argument is one that seeks to establish a conclusion on the basis of premises, with a tight connection between the premises and conclusion”(Bridgepoint, 2011). He also says that “In contrast to deductive arguments, inductive arguments offer conclusions that, one way or another, introduce information that is not contained in the premises”(Bridgepoint, 2011).
Therefore, science uses a collection of premises that are tightly connected to the conclusion, and then progressively builds on that conclusion with new premises that relate, to form brand-new conclusions. Religious discussions usually involve conclusions that are not directly linked to the information in the premises. Mosser also states that “Understanding how arguments work, and why they often do not work, will help make our own reasoning better, and make it less likely that we are persuaded of something when we shouldn’t be”(Bridgepoint, 2011). It seems to me that science and religion are on two ends of the same gradient spectrum. Mike King writes, “As mentioned earlier, one of my motivations in exploring issues of spirituality and art and science was a curiosity about a strange phenomenon: the recent willingness of scientists to write about God as if God were an outcome of their science”(Leonardo, 1998). It seems that most scientists who find God, do so as a result of their scientific observations, and religions usually believe that God created science, and in fact, everything that it is used to observe.
In my opinion, the link between science and religion is already established; the disagreement is on which side everything originates. Darwinism is one of the foremost arguments against creationism, or the Intelligent Design theory. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia says, “Darwin observed (as had Malthus) that although all organisms tend to reproduce in a geometrically increasing ratio, the numbers of a given species remain more or less constant. From this he deduced that there is a continuing struggle for existence, for survival. He pointed out the existence of variations—differences among members of the same species—and suggested that the variations that prove helpful to a plant or an animal in its struggle for existence better enable it to survive and reproduce”(Columbia, 2011). The evolution theory explains the current state of biological life, with no reference to God or a creator. The main argument assumes that life burst into being due to some natural bio-chemical reaction and that life evolved from that point forward.
The most complex organisms survived because they were most ‘fit’ for the circumstances, and the ‘unfit’ creatures died. Lacking a broader scope, I would also agree that Darwinism explains life as we know it. What accounts for that initial spark, the bio-chemical reaction that Darwinists need to provide a logical base for their argument? How did those raw elements form to create a perfect opportunity for the reaction to occur? Why is there any matter in existence at all? I postulate that these conditions would only be present if an intelligent Creator designed them. In fact, the evolution theory might well explain how life as we know it came to be from single-celled amoebas. But, how were those proteins and the RNA code that programmed them created? Darwinism only accounts for the survival of the fittest, after life has been already created.
Two cells, warring against each other and one wins. But how did two living cells come to be in the first place? Scientists currently search for the so-called “God Particle”, better known as the Higgs boson, which is one of matter’s fundamental building blocks. Randall says that: “Nonetheless, the Higgs mechanism is critical to today’s theory of the basic elements of matter. Higgs and his colleagues theorized that space itself contains a sort of charge. Elementary particles acquire mass through their interaction with the charge (you might think of this charge as a traffic camera that slows down traffic even without any actual policemen to stop the cars)”(Newsweek, 2011).
What is this “charge” they speak of? How did this “charge” get “charged”? Questions like these raise serious doubts that the scientific explanations are totally comprehensive. The scientific method is used to test hypotheses and use the results to formulate singular theories. These theories usually serve to answer one question, at best, many questions about one single topic. Until the scientific research method is used while asking all of the possible questions, it will remain limited to answering only the queries that scientists pose. Religion and science are inevitably converging. Grinde writes that, “There is reasonable evidence suggesting that humans have an innate tendency toward being religious.
Consequently, religion is unlikely to disappear; the question then is how this feature will impact on future society. Three scenarios are discussed: One, science will dominate; two, religion will dominate; and three, the present conﬂict between the two is resolved”(Journal, 2010). In the past, religion and science have each been used to fill a necessary void in humanity’s belief system. Instead of wasting energy finding reasons why they should be kept apart, I believe it would be much more efficient and satisfying to embrace the similarities between the two traditions. In the future, I believe religion and science will discover more and more common ground and that this evolution of unity will serve humanity’s need for information and explanation, as well as their spiritual yearning to connect with a higher power.
Darwinism. (2011). Darwinism. Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, 1. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ Grinde, B. (2010). God in the Hands of Future Science. World Futures: The Journal Of General Evolution, 66(5), 351-362. doi:10.1080/02604027.2010.484734 King, Mike. (1998). Concerning the Spiritual in Twentieth-Century Art and Science. Leonardo: The MIT Press , 31(1), 21-31. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1576543 Mosser, K. (2011). An Introduction to Logic. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from: https://content.ashford.edu Randall, L. (2011). In Search of the God Particle. Newsweek, 158(26/1), 46-49. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com