The Theory of Everything, Theology

The Religion of Science

To understand the world, you must understand what equations mean, and not just know mathematical constructs.

We have, in the palms of our hands, the sum total of all the collected knowledge in the history of the world. At any point during any day, regardless of location, we have access to this immense information via our smart phones. Why, then, does our understanding of the universe and our existence remain no more accurate than were the Mayans or the Babylonians?

I love science. I love learning and comprehending new concepts. How can one know how to live, if one does not know what life truly is? Science, as it is now, is like religion; less interested in facts than it is in the pursuit of Truth. Science is supposed to be based on observable laws, and in accordance to the scientific method, empirically proven in order to establish factuality. Explanation and meaning of the data is open to interpretation. Interpretation is based of the conclusions of the interpreter. The interpreter will conclude based on observation of the data, coupled with preconceived notions and a relative system of belief or paradigm. When a sizable consensus of “established” interpreters agree on an interpretation, it becomes “scientific”. And to become an “established” interpreter, one must first be in agreement with all that is considered “scientific”. And thus, what is scientific is subjective and based on interpretation.

For this reason, I never accept science on blind faith. Science is man-made, and man is not all-knowing. Unlike God. And since I believe God has revealed Himself in Scripture, anytime science conflicts with the source of Truth, science must be wrong.

I am constantly amused at the irony of scientists who disparage Scripture as erroneous and unscientific. There is more truth on any one page of Scripture than there is in most science books. The notion that religion should be kept out of science is laughable, because science is itself a religion, the current State Religion of the United States.

But, like any religion, there are elements of truth in science. It provides a good deal of useful equations and observations. And I find the shows on The Science Channel and the like quite entertaining for the most part, I suppose, to the level of entertainment an Atheist would probably derive from watching a show about Creation Science, except my mind is a little more open and receptive to nuggets of truth.

So, how can science become less religious? Well, how about just presenting the data. Stop preaching to us about what it means. Leave that for religions and philosophers. And please stop the absurdity of looking for evidence solely for the purpose of proving your own religion — just investigate what is plainly there, and not what you insist MUST BE THERE. Why must every study of astronomy center around the Big Bang or whether or not something might possibly contain a speck of life? Oh that’s right, because of evolution, the focal point of their religion, the creator of all life, the master of the universe. This will explain the reason that most of the time, they don’t have a clue WHAT they’re looking for, because in reality, since the Big Bang and macro evolution (and the process by which lifeless matter becomes complex living organisms) has never been observed or reproduced in a laboratory (via the scientific method), no one knows the process or how to find the proofs they’re looking for.

Scripture tells us where life came from and how the universe began. Life did not come from lifeless matter. Life came from life. Every cell comes from another cell. This fact has never been disproven. I consider myself far less religious than the establishment scientists, because unlike them, I am not seeking to prove my creator exists. I am only interested in understanding the facts. I don’t need to explain God or have someone else try to explain Him. How exactly does one explain a God who has no beginning and who creates something out of nothing, life from lifelessness?

Scripture, which contains the meaning of all things, allows us the opportunity to understand science and the universe in a way which is impossible otherwise. And while I appreciate the data which science provides, its current paradigm is absolutely useless to me. Facts are stubborn things.

About Quackzalcoatl

Phoneticist, Palindrologist, and freelance Sharknadologist. Inventor. Ruler of 2-acre lakes and small streams.


13 thoughts on “The Religion of Science

  1. I’m a bit unsure about your take on science. It reminds me of how non-Christians who have very little experience with Christianity view Christians based on televangelists and those who vocally push Christianity toward others.

    If you look at it from a Christian standpoint, science is a study of God’s creation. Of course there are those who will push specific agendas using a twist of science, just like there are those who will push specific agendas using a twist of Christianity.

    I think the problem is that people fight between creation and evolution when the whole truth is likely a combination of the two. I think of the divide between other religions in a similar way – it’s not one or the other, it’s all of the above. What we should be doing is connecting the dots.

    Posted by jasonjshaw | 5 October, 2013, 10:53 am
  2. Quack, Thanks for another good read. I don’t think anyone can truly be objective, but you make a good effort. The hardest thing any of us has to do to grow in understanding the cosmos and our place in it, is to discard ideas and concepts that the weight of evidence does not support. I have often thought that the progression of creation is a revelation of who we are in relationship to the Creator. Because we human beings create in a progressive manner, perhaps the Creator is confirming that we are indeed made in His image with the capacity to be like Him.

    Posted by Marc | 11 November, 2013, 11:58 am
    • Thanks for your comments, Marc. And as it is Veteran’s Day, I would also like to thank you for your service in Korea!

      Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 11 November, 2013, 8:02 pm
      • For some reason Arch came to the conclusion that I served during the Korean War. I think I mentioned on Nate’s blog that I served during the Cold War, but I was not specific as to the time. I actually served In the USAF from 1969 to 1973 and was stationed in England. I think Arch was in Vietnam at about the same time. I appreciate your remembering me on Veteran’s Day Quack, and I appreciate the service of Arch and my son and so many others.

        Posted by Marc | 12 November, 2013, 12:28 pm
        • I was wondering about that, because that because that would make you into your 80’s, and I don’t know too many that age who are as computer savvy as you seem to be!

          Well, in that case, my respect for you and Arch and what you went through is enormous. I am sickened by what you guys went through, betrayed by your government and abandoned by the home front. Yet you guys all fought as effectively and valiantly as any generation ever has. I salute you, sir!

          Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 12 November, 2013, 4:55 pm
  3. Thanks, Quack. It was an honor to serve. When my son came back from his first combat tour in Iraq it felt really good to witness the honor and respect he and his brothers and sisters in arms were given. Although I always wore my uniform with pride, I did not like being called a “baby killer” and given dirty looks going through airports. Perhaps we should return to the good old days when the King, as head of the government, led the troops into harms way. We would have avoided a lot of the recent wars because the President and Congressional leaders would not have had the guts to lead the troops from the front.

    Posted by Marc | 12 November, 2013, 5:20 pm
    • It is far too easy to order troops into battle from behind a desk, isn’t it? We used to be so reluctant after Vietnam to commit to armed intervention. I mean, look at Panama and the Gulf War in the 80’s and 90’s. Extremely swift overwhelming actions with limited defined objectives. No one wanted to repeat the mistakes of before. And yet, we’re right back into broad conflicts with ambiguous parameters and no clear end game. Thankfully, we’re not blaming the mistakes on the soldiers this time. At least we’ve learned THAT lesson.

      Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 12 November, 2013, 5:58 pm
      • Well said Quack. I hope that the current administration understands the limits, as well as possibilities of Military action. Nation building is not really a job for our armed forces. Let us bring our armed forces home. I have to say this: nobody carries the big stick better than our military, they can destroy targets and kill adversaries with great efficiency. However with first class efforts by our State Department, we can avoid putting our armed forces in harms way.

        Posted by Marc | 12 November, 2013, 6:12 pm
        • Absolutely. We have an elite force which shouldn’t be wasted on nation building and receiving pot-shots like they are right now. People have to want democracy enough to fight for it, so the very notion is ridiculous that we can do the fighting for them and then they’ll thank us.

          Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 12 November, 2013, 6:19 pm
  4. Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
    Paarsurrey says:
    I appreciate your write-up and your understanding of science and religion in a new dimension.
    At a point of time the zealots of science could interpret the data of science wrongly which is not there actually and is proven wrong in the future.
    The same way the zealots of religion could interpret the scripture wrongly which is not there factually.

    Posted by paarsurrey | 19 November, 2013, 11:54 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: