Ask A Scientist© Biology Archive

Author:      holt
Text:        What argument would you use to convince a student that has a deep 
religious background that the faith they have in G-d and the creation story is 
different than the faith that a scientist has in his/her equipment?  Is the 
theory for the scientific method a more valid way of believing in a topic like 
the creation of life, than the biblical version?

Response #:  1 of 4
Author:      samb
Text:        It is not a matter of faith.  The scientist is attempting to 
create a consistent explanation of how nature works that allows predictions 
and correlations of data that are currently not known.  The emphasis is on how 
nature works, not on why or who made nature to work the way it does.  It is 
possible, and indeed the case that several scientists are religious, but the 
creation of scientific knowledge does not conflict with religious truth of who 
and why unless the religion tries to describe how in a way that conflicts with 
reality.  Any time that the religious belief attempts to construct a 
description of the way in which nature works without testing it, (ie., without 
doing science) then it has stopped being religion and tried as science.  At 
that point it must meet the same standards of testing and assessment and it 
stops being religion.  Some of the past conflicts between science and religion 
were cases where religion tried to extend its description beyond the who and 
why, into the how without checking reality.  The student should be able to 
have any belief about who and why, but any belief about how needs to stand the 
test of direct comparison with nature itself.

Response #:  2 of 4
Author:      Lou Harnisch
Text:        The previous answer is really great!  However, to make any 
inroads will take time!  I have taught evolution at the high school level in a 
parochial school with some fundamentalists pressure from staff and still got 
students to think about sound scientific principles.  Some are so wrapped into 
the dogma you cannot reach them and it is best not to over exert.  But here 
are a few things that might help:  Most biblical scholars believe the first 
few chapters in Genesis to be figurative, not literal - up to the time of 
Abraham.  This is known as "higher criticism" and is fueled in part by the 
early discovery of the dead sea scrolls.  A super video to study and show 
these students is a 1989 NOVA called "G-d, Darwin, and The Dinosaurs" which is 
distributed by Coronet/MTI at 800-621-2131.

Response #:  3 of 4
Author:      Psych
Text:        On a very basic semantic level, science and religion are two 
different paradigms (ways of thinking about the world) that usually do not 
have a lot to do with each other.  However having faith in these paradigms is 
probably fairly similar.  That is not to say that I could agree with the idea 
that one can replace one with the other.  Having faith is a philosophical 
question (believing in something).  One way of approaching the question is to 
be specific about defining the semantics involved.  Religions are paradigms 
about things like god, afterlife and what is a better way of living one's 
life.  Science is a paradigm that deals with how one explores and explains


phenomena in the concrete world.  As mentioned, the problems arise when one 
attempts to explain the other.  In a conflicted area such as evolution it 
might help to unfocus from an argument about truth.  Instead it might be 
better to focus on the evidence for evolution and how the theory of evolution 
interprets that evidence, then perhaps to acknowledge how creationism 
interprets that evidence.  A student, then required to know the facts as 
mentioned, but does not necessarily have to choose against what might feel 
like one's faith.

Response #:  4 of 4
Author:      Lou Harnisch
Text:        For the last response from psych, the last two sentences:  The 
problem is that fundamentalist creationism forces their people to make that 
decision.  "You believe this way or your faith is flawed" approach.  Sometimes 
evolutionists can be just as forceful and dogmatic too.  I like Psych's 
approach a lot!