Science cannot kill God

In the society we live in today, people look for ways to know the truth of the world around them. Through the development of western society we have come to place a lot of trust in the scientific method. This method uses experiments and results of those experiments for people to be able to place their educated guess on something more than just speculation. An error that often happens when using this method is the formulation of an opinion before receiving and evaluating the data collected. For example when scientists were first learning about action potentials used by nerves, their recordings showed tiny random blips along with the expected easy to decipher action potential. They felt that from their recordings they had truly understood what was happening within the cell and through their preconceived arrogance they disregarded the small blips as recording mistakes. Finally one bold scientist decided to question the blips and made one of the most remarkable discoveries about the functionality of nerves. Another example (there are infinite examples) is one of North American Archaeology, just thirty years ago if you were to ask an Archaeologist where the earliest Americans came from, they would instantly tell you that they came through the ice free corridor from Siberia through Alaska in the year 11,000 b.p.(before present) and there was no question about it, all the evidence supported it. Over the last 30 years so much evidence has risen that the idea of the people coming from the ice free corridor has been all but abandoned. The reaction of the stubborn Archeaologists that believed in the ice free corridor, at the discovery of new findings and evidence of people coming in ways other than the ice free corridor was one of vicious disbelief. It took more evidence to prove that the ice free corridor was wrong than they originally had to believe in the ice free corridor in the first place. Now there are theories of boats from france, boats from japan, even boats from india. With this imperfection of the scientific method understood, much can be answered about the relationship between scientists and the belief in God. Many scientists believe that there is a God and can marvel at how science shows his fingerprint. The majority of scientists use science as a proof to disprove Gods existence. In this article I will show how that is impossible, and foolish. With findings from research and evidence of experiments there is always an element of interpretation. This element can often result in completely different results. This is the part where the opinion of the scientist, his biases, and his ability to reason can have a large sway in the final declaration. I will use the example of evolution, since it is the argument most used by scientists in the desire to disprove God. Results from an experiment show that the same protein, let’s say it’s a kinase, is found in humans, rats, and other “advanced” mammals, but not found in single celled or other small multicellular eukaryotes. That is the data. Now, how is this data going to be interpreted? What’s the scientist's opinion or agenda? Let’s say, since it happens as the majority, that the scientist himself doesn’t believe in God, he will instantly look for ways to have this data prove his opinion to be correct. His motivation may be that he knows the susceptibility of people to believe something from “science”. Besides he’s highly educated and he has a PHD, that must mean he knows everything, other people are dumb, and that what he says must be true. So through the clouded eyes of his own disbelief in God he interprets the data to mean that through evolution this protein was developed for the use of only the higher organisms, and as a species evolved this protein was created by chance and passed on through natural selection. How bogus!
Through the eyes of faith in God this same data proves that he created things through knowledge and order. That as he created each creature he knew that the small eukaryotes would not need that protein and the larger ones would. Another example (again, there are millions of them, in fact all data can be used to support the existence of a God if seen through the eyes of open mindedness and faith) are voltage gated Ion channels (in neurons). These are divided into many groups and categories. They are structurally nearly identical to ligand gated Ion channels. Voltage gated Ion channels are only found in higher animals which have brains, and ligand gated Ion channels are found in all cells, even bacteria. So scientists with the blinded bias of disbelief look at the similarity of structure and instantly declare “Evolution”. When in this case even logic supports that the similarity of structure supports a genius designer. If I am a homebuilder and I were to build a few homes in southern California, I have them built with adobe clay tile roofs. I then move my operations to Maine and the homes I build there have asphalt shingle roofs. If someone were to make a study of the homes I built they would notice that all aspects of the homes were the same except for the style of roof, that is the data found. Now the interpreter of the data could conclude, seeing that the framing, drywall, electrical, plumbing, flooring, and everything else about the houses were the same except for the different roofs, that the houses in Maine are an evolved form of the California house. They could claim that natural selection had caused the houses in Maine to flourish through their adaptation and that the adobe houses died off. That’s absurd! The correct interpretation would have been that I, the intelligent builder, saw the differences in climate that the houses would be built in and designed them to fit their environment the best. Adobe clay tiles are great at withstanding years of direct sunlight, they will last fifty years, and are good at ventilating heat away from the house. These characteristics make it the perfect roof for Temecula California. Versus asphalt shingles which handle freezing weather well, and act as an insulator to help the home maintain its heat, this works great for Maine. The fact that the houses are so similar is proof that they were built by the same person. This can all be compared to science on living cells. Much of the function and basic structures are the same across all life forms, with variations according to the needs the organism faces in the places it lives in. This is proof of being designed by God, not natural selection. Yet, scientists with their predetermined disbelief and anti-God agendas find any way possible to warp their interpretations to fit their opinions.
There are scriptures that explain how foolish men are when they try to use science, or anything else, to try to disprove God’s existence. Imagine an object that I built with my own hands, and then the object exclaims to me that I didn’t build it, or that I am not intelligent enough to be able to have built it, or that I dont even exist to have built it. That’s ridiculous, but that’s what these “educated” men are saying. “Shall the ax boast itself against him that heweth therewith? Shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself as if it were no wood!” (2 Nephi 20:15) How angry, offended, and insulted would I be if something that I made were to say that to me. “The wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their riches- yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.” (2 Nephi 9:42) Oh how foolish men are when they feel that they know something that disproves the existence of God!
Another interesting thing about scientists using the argument of evolution to destroy God is that the man who first considered the idea of natural selection didn’t believe that men came from evolution and claimed it impossible. Darwin quotes:
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” (Darwin 1872)
How could scientists have warped this idea of natural selection to such an extent, when the author himself did not believe, to be able to declare emperically that God does not exist?! I’ll tell you how, they destroyed God in their own mind first, and then using that disbelief, they warp the interpretation of data to fit their own lack of faith, even when their interpretations go against all logic and reason.
Jordan