Day 1 left me with a few conclusions. First, I concede that science is a thing. I think that science is only a construct within the human mind and that science is not a “thing” outside of the intellect. I also stated that I do not believe that science would not exist at all if mankind did not exist even if all other current life forms on earth remained.
Yet, I also came to believe that even if mankind were not on the earth religion would still exist. The Bible states that the trees, animals and even rocks cry out in praise to God; thus making worship of God a thing that is independant of man’s existence. Worship of God being an act of religion means that religion is a “thing”.
Today’s thoughts began with this…
My thinking was that Darwin may state a theory but no one can ever prove with 100% certainty that this theory is correct because no one saw it. We see the evidence of it in the form of carbon dating and skeletons of creatures and beings of long ago but there are no witnesses….except (of course) God.
This, of course, is obvious but I will repeat it. Science has never “seen” the beginings of life as they took shape on the earth either. Science, being a construct of the human mind and not a conscious, living organism itself cannot bear witness to evolution.
However, with regards to Christianity, I find this scripture that John wrote in 1 John 1:1. AMP [We are writing] about the Word of Life [in] Him Who existed from the beginning, Whom we have heard, Whom we have seen with our [own] eyes, Whom we have gazed upon [for ourselves] and have touched with our [own] hands.
Science has not seen; not witnessed and therefore cannot testify to is the one thing that they predicate every theory on; namely the first one-celled microorganism coming to life.
However, Christianity can say that they have witnessed and can testify to the one thing that they predicate every religious theory on; namely the Word of Life.
Science only gives us static pieces of the puzzle. Or does it only do that? One may be able to argue that through coupling science with the human mind medicines have been developed which have cured disease. But, one could also argue that science and the human intellect also created the atomic bomb. Both of these (medicines and the atomic bomb) are “things”. They are not theories.
Can one come to the conlusion, though, that the mind that used scienctific principles to create the medicine was not engaged in any moral or immoral activity? Did the mind of the inventor of the atomic bomb care or realize that this was an immense power of destruction and possibly vast loss of human life?
That was when I wrote this…
Can the desire within the human mind to achieve the goal of creating the scientific components that are used in the atomic bomb outweigh the desire within that same mind to protect all of mankind from death and destruction? Did the scientist become non-human and transform into science itself?
From that, my next conclusion was….
By stating that I came from a one-celled microorganism am I stating that all that’s been added to me are a bunch of human-like qualities, bells and whistles that make me appear to be more than that today? When in reality, if I were to face the cold truth of science, without all the fluff of human intellect and scienctific thinking, that is all I am today?
But, that can’t be true because of LOVE. I have the capability to love and that one-celled microorganism did not. So, what about science itself?
So, what about Christianity (religion)? What morals exist and has any human ever lived up to them in perfection and completeness? Can Christianity account for the creation of love and the existence of love?
The bible in John 1:17 states this… For the law was given through Moses, but God’s unfailing love and faithfulness came through Jesus Christ. (NLT)
Could this scripture also be saying (in effect) that Science was given through great men of science but love and faithfulness came through Jesus Christ?
Again on the subject of love the bible states in Romans 8:38… And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love.
Can this be said of science? Can one state with positivity that nothing can separate us from science? Death or life, etc, cannot separate us from science?
First, neither science nor any intelligent human eye witnessed the birth of the first living one-celled microorganism. Yet, there were many human witnesses to the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
While science coupled with the human intellect can produce a thing, that product is not made with a human moral base. It is void of morals. It is a thing void of a conscious and awareness of a moral or immoral use for the thing that has now been created.
The other “thing” that is missing from the scientific creation is a love for the human it will be used on. If it works, it works. If it has complications, it has complications. It is a lifeless, static thing that has no love or moral base. If the person dies, they die.
But, when I look at the bible, I can see that there is a moral basis for every act God does. I see that all is done through love. The human is preserved from ever being a lifeless, static thing that must suffer complications because of a lack of a moral conscience.
Thus, because God is love (I John 4:8), God could not be science and science could not be God. Science has no love.
This is all for today. Please, come back again when I will continue with LET THERE BE SCIENCE? DAY 3, as I put my thinking through even further debate between science and religion (Christianity).
BLIS.BLOG…..Another “blinking in sunlight” post…..by Janet Williams
A BLOG TO SEE!