• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Differentiate Between Science, Faith

Posted on: Tuesday, 14 February 2006, 03:03 CST

Gilbert Ward wrote a letter - "Why science should teach creation" - published Jan. 28. There are at least two replies to this assertion.

The first is that creation is already taught in science courses. The hypothesis of the "big bang" is that there was a point when the universe did not exist, and another when it suddenly did. That's creation, but I don't believe that is what he wants.

When I teach a science course, I could teach the Choctaw story of how crawfish dove through the water getting a ball of mud for First Man to use to create the world, but this wouldn't satisfy Mr. Ward either. I think he wants the Genesis account of creation.

The second answer to Mr. Ward's position is that science is only capable of dealing with the material world. There are many things that may be true, including a creator, but they are outside the ability of science to deal with. Science is not a collection of facts or immutable truths, but rather a method of determining what is most probably true. Hypotheses are formed and tested and, while theories and hypotheses can be proven wrong, they can never be proven true.

Scientists must be prepared to accept that the next test of an accepted theory may be the one that proves it wrong. Even the "law" of gravity is, and must remain, suspect - though I feel comfortable saying that it is correct enough for most purposes.

Absolute truths are matters to deal with by faith. Science, unlike faith, has limits so don't ask science to support your absolute truths because it can't and won't. On the other hand, if you require science to prove your idea of a creator, you haven't much faith.

Douglas Martin

Evans

Source: Augusta Chronicle, The

More News in this Category