OJBs Web Site: Science and Christianity FAQ

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Discuss (Up to OJB's Religion and Science Page)

Science and Christianity FAQ, version 1.01

Introduction

Q. What is an FAQ?

A. Its a common type of document found on the Internet for answering common questions asked about a particular subject. FAQ stands for "frequently asked questions", and by implication, the answers!

Q. Why did you create this FAQ?

A. There are many resources on the Internet which already cover this material but they are often very lengthy and hard to read. I have tried to make this FAQ short, easy to read, but also based on solid facts. And I get sick of people asking the same questions over and over - this might answer some before they need to be asked yet again!

Q. Does this apply to all religions?

A. Not really. I don't know much about religions apart from Christianity, so that is the religion I have concentrated on here. But some of the ideas here apply to other religions and belief systems as well, especially the stuff related to faith.

Here's the Real FAQ

Q. Isn't science just another type of religion?

A. No. Religions tend to have a set of beliefs which are accepted as being undeniably true. In science, everything is open to question. Anyone challenging the beliefs of a religion is likely to be excommunicated. Anyone who disproves an established scientific theory is more likely to get a Nobel prize! For example, in 1905 Einstein changed the way we think of physics forever.

Q. Isn't religion just as valid as science, but in a different way?

A. No. Not if you are talking about validity from the point of view of establishing objective truth. Religion relies heavily on faith. Faith is not a good way to establish the truth because it relies on people accepting an agreed set of beliefs without question.

Q. But science just deals with theories, not facts, doesn't it?

A. No. At least, not in the sense that the word theory is used by scientists. In science something can be both a theory and a fact. For example we know evolution happens. That's a fact. And we have a theory to explain it, which works very well and is almost universally accepted.

Q. Do we know scientific theories are definitely true?

A. No. Nothing is ever really proved beyond any doubt in science. But certain theories are so widely accepted that the chance of them being rejected entirely is almost zero. In science the evidence is used to select the best theory to explain any phenomenon. Sometimes new evidence means a new theory is necessary, but generally it just involves slight revisions to existing ones.

Q. Doesn't science agree with religious beliefs anyway?

A. No. At least not the beliefs which can be examined in a meaningful way. For example the Christian stories of creation, and the flood are directly contradicted by scientific findings. Other religious beliefs are less specific and more difficult to disprove (but also more difficult to prove). For example, science can't show for sure that there is no God, but there is equally no way to prove that there is one.

Q. Many books show that creationism is true, don't they?

A. No. There area many books (and other sources, such as web sites) which claim either scientific theories, such as evolution, are untrue, or that creationism is proven as true. These often seem convincing if you read them in isolation and without checking their facts. They generally rely on discredited theories, highly selective evidence, and partial quotes. By doing some research in scientific publications its usually easy to show that these sources don't prove anything.

Q. Many people believe in God, so mustn't he exist?

A. No. That doesn't really follow necessarily. People used to think the Earth was flat, but few do now. Also, many people who include themselves in a religious group for census and statistical purposes don't have a particularly strong belief in that religion, so the number of religious people is generally hugely over-estimated.

Q. Scientific theories change all the time, don't they?

A. No, not really. No major theories I know of have ever been thrown out in their entirety. Many have been modified because some of the details weren't correct. For example we now believe evolution occurs in major leaps, with long periods of time in between, instead of smoothly and evenly. Evolution itself is still accepted though.

Q. Haven't there been a lot of hoaxes in science?

A. No. There have been some hoaxes related to scientific subjects. For example the famous Piltdown Man was supposed to be a fossil of an early human, but it was a hoax. This occurred largely because scientists weren't allowed to examine it and when they did the hoax was exposed. Science is good at correcting any errors it does make.

Q. Isn't creationism just as valid as evolution as a science?

A. No. Creationism isn't discussed in the scientific literature at all (or at least not that I can find). Also creationist literature has a very poor standard of academic rigour. It isn't peer reviewed, and doesn't receive the same critical examination as true scientific research.

Q. Don't the prophecies in the Bible show it was written by God?

A. No. There are no prophecies in the Bible which are strongly supported by other sources. Its easy for a book to fulfill its own prophecies - any work of fiction can do that. The prophecies which seem to relate to modern events are always explained after the event. No major prophecy from the Bible (that I know of) has ever predicted an event ahead of time.

Q. Isn't there evidence for a global flood as described in the Bible?

A. No. There is no evidence for a flood which covered the whole Earth. There have been numerous minor floods which probably started the global flood story, but they were quite different from the Biblical account. Reports of the Ark being found are untrue or hoaxes. The idea the Grand Canyon was created by the Flood is untrue. It can be shown that it was formed over a much longer period of time.

Q. Because there is no fossil evidence of missing links, isn't evolution wrong?

A. No. There have been many missing links discovered. There are many links which haven't been found and probably never will be. This is because fossils are actually very rare. Only a tiny fraction of one percent of living things ever become fossilised, so its not surprising that only a limited number of links have been found.

Q. The Earth is perfect for life, doesn't that show God created it?

A. No. First, life can stand more extreme conditions than many people think. If the Earth was warmer or colder than it is, life could have evolved to handle the different conditions. The fact that that the Earth is so "perfect" actually supports evolution, because it shows how life has evolved to fit the current conditions. Also, Earth isn't really perfect, many mass extinctions have occurred. Second, we think there are trillions of planets in the Universe. On average we would expect one or two in a "typical" solar system to be about the right distance from the star to support life. That means its not that unusual to get a "perfect" planet.

Q. The Bible's creation account is very similar to science, isn't it?

A. No, not really. The Genesis story gets some things right, but only about what you would expect from any work of fiction. The world was most definitely not created in 6 days. And it wasn't created in 6000 years either. Also the order of creation is quite wrong. In order to make Genesis fit the facts as we know them it would have to be changed so that it was basically unrecognisable.

Q. Some scientists are religious. Does that mean religion is valid?

A. No. Religion is not necessarily valid just because some scientists are religious. Some scientists use god as a conceptual idea as opposed to believing in the traditional representations we get from the world's religions. For example, Einstein referred to god, but he wasn't referring to the Biblical version. Other scientists are Christians, but they must keep their religious lives and professional lives separate. Even scientists sometimes believe in contradictory ideas.

Q. Doesn't the Bible provide a good moral framework?

A. No, and yes. There is a lot of contradictory information in the Bible. There is a lot of nonsense which has no valid use today. But there is also some positive philosophy which is well worth using as a basis for morality. The problem starts with the blind acceptance of the Bible in its entirety.

Comment on this page: Convincing • Interesting • Unconvincing or: View Results