Christians are anti-science. I hear that all the time. Scientists have learned all these things about the earth, space, the origin of life and Christians are just ignorant. They cling to their ancient stories and fairy tales and refuse to accept the facts that science has produced.
The fact is that science, by definition, is the art of observation. What they pass off as science now is a collection of theories and speculations that require leaps of faith far more astounding than anything a Christian would have to make.
They can tell you how the universe began: In the beginning there was nothing. Then, it exploded.
They can tell you where life came from...kind of. Something about a primordial soup, some mysterious proteins, some sort of energy was applied and voilá! We have life. They don't know what kind of energy. They don't know where the proteins came from. They don't know the details because no one was there. Try as they might, they can't reproduce it in a laboratory. We just have to take their word for it...on faith.
They can tell us where we (people) came from: Evolution. The holy grail of science. Make no mistake, science has become a religion. The religion that has been established by a government that is constitutionally forbidden from establishing a religion. If you don't believe it is a religion, try questioning any of their tenets of faith and see what happens. You will be ridiculed, vilified, ostracized, boycotted, and stripped of whatever scientific credentials you may have had. If they could legally burn you at the stake, they would.
Look what happened to Kansas in 1999 when they had the audacity to make the teaching of evolution non-mandatory. They were threatened with lawsuits. Publishers of science text books boycotted the state and refused to sell the state's school districts text books. It didn't take long before the state buckled under the pressure. Then in 2005, they tried to introduce a Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan. This time, the threats and ridicule stopped them before it could even be implemented.
Yet there are major flaws in Darwin's pet theory. It flies in the face of the second law of thermal dynamics which states that everything, without an outside influence, moves from a state of order to disorder. Darwin's theory states just the opposite: That we started with a single cell organism that over time grew ever more complex until that single cell became the parent, as it were, of every plant and animal on earth. It would be the same as throwing everything from a junk yard into a giant cement mixer and having a fully functional Boeing 747 airliner come out. You mention this to proponents of Darwin and they will tell you that you are discounting the time factor. That given enough time, anything can happen. Wrong! Time only makes it worse. Given enough time, what you would have is dust.
Then there is the law of bio-genesis. I love this one. It states that life can only come from life. It cannot be produced any other way. This is the law that is killing the Darwin advocates. They are determined to prove this law false. All by itself it says Darwin may have sniffed a few too many plants during his botanical voyage on the Beagle. The problem for evolutionists is, the more they try to disprove it, the more they actually prove it.
But if you intend to work in any field of science, you best not mention any of this. It's BLASPHEMY! There is no other way to put it. You might as well tell a Catholic that the Pope isn't infallible.
There is a whole list of professors who have lost their job at major universities for even mentioning “Intelligent Design.”
A school of thought is emerging that people were actually seeded on this planet by an alien race from somewhere in space. This idea isn't gaining much traction, but you can at least explore the idea without losing your job. Apparently, any thought is worth exploring as long as it doesn't mention God.
I've been trying to figure out exactly when the scientific community became so hostile to faith in God. So hostile that they are willing to manipulate evidence, lie about fossil records, and shout down anyone who would suggest that the myriad intricate systems necessary for the human body to function could not have happened by accident, or chance.
Joseph Lister, Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin (the guy that came up with absolute zero temperature), Louis Pasteur (the man that invented pasteurization), Francis Bacon (NOT the guy that turned pork bellies into delicious breakfast food. He was actually the man that developed the Scientific Method), Johann Kepler, James Simpson, Gregor Mendel (Genetics), Leonardo Da Vinci, the list goes on and on of great scientists and inventors who believed in God. Even Albert Einstein famously said “the more I study science, the more I believe in God.”
Then in the nineteenth century, a geologist (Charles Lyell), a couple of botanists (Joseph Hooker & Asa Gray) and Charles Darwin, who's biography has him as a botanist and a geologist as well as a zoologist, all got to know each other. The botanists had a problem. They were trying to figure out how forty different species of plants seem to grow only in the Eastern part of North America and in Japan, among other apparent geographic anomalies. The geologist, for his part had come up with a revolutionary idea for how the earth formed all the different geological features it has. This idea has become known as Uniformitarianism. That really is a word, I swear! It basically says that all the processes that shaped the earth are still active today. This line of thinking would necessarily mean that the earth has been forming for a long, long time. Longer, by far than the amount of time man has been on it. This kinda conflicts with the account in Genesis, and in fact he left his position as the head of the geology department at King's College because it was a Church of England-based college and he said he wanted to “free the science from Moses.”
The four men, all highly regarded in their fields, got to know each other and traded notes until they came up with a theory, brilliantly articulated in Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, which appeared to solve all of their puzzles concerning the different yet similar species they had observed all over the globe. All they had to do was delete God from the equation. If they considered the Biblical account of creation... Well, they'd have to keep thinking, wouldn't they? If they would have kept thinking, or maybe talked to somebody in one of the other fields of science, they might have found out that the thing doesn't work out mathematically. But hey, they were on a roll.
The debates on the theory started before the book was even published. All the debates however, centered on philosophical, religious, and methodological differences all the participants had. The Evolution proponents won all these debates because they had “empirical evidence” on their side. That means they could bury their opponents in data. ...and we all know that data, if you torture it long enough, will confess to anything. Those arguing from a religious position were arguing from a view of the Bible and God that had become so skewed over the centuries that they probably did more damage to faith in God than the evolutionists did.
Now we have Arthur C. Clark, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Hawking (believes in extra-terrestrial life, but not God), Carl Sagan (also believes in aliens from outer space), Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers and Christopher Hutchens. This list goes on for a ways, too, but I noticed that the names I recognize are mostly great science fiction writers (I can't tell you how many Isaac Asimov books I've read) and theoretical physicists. Stephen Hawking seems to be everybody's favorite. He's definitely mine. He says, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” No leaps of faith there. Of course we just popped up out of nothing.
These are all people of vastly superior intellect. Just ask them. Stephen Hawking claims that he can think in eleven dimensions. They have all fallen so much in love with their own genius that they believe we don't need God. We have them.
They have their little club where any scientific idea must be “peer reviewed” before it can even be published in the scientific journals. So if you write something that agrees with their thinking, your ideas are allowed to be considered scientifically valid. If you have an idea that helps to cover up one of the holes in their logic, then you're a genius. If you mention anything that might suggest the line of thinking they started down a hundred and fifty-odd years ago is going the wrong way, you are labeled a Creationist and anti-science.
I'm sorry. There isn't a Christian anywhere trying to say that E does not equal MC2. There are however, an unfortunately influential group of so-called scientists who not only claim that God doesn't exist, but will not tolerate anyone who would dare say that He does. Has their argument proven so flimsy against real physical science that they can no longer tolerate debate on the subject?
I'll leave you with another Einstein quote... “There are only two ways to live your life: One is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is a miracle.” I live according to the latter. Then again, I don't worship at the altar of Charles Darwin.