God and science

In modern times, there has been a great separation of God from Science as if it is impossible for the two to coexist. which is funny since the greatest minds of science were either Christian or believed in the possibility of God.

Copernicus
Isaac Newton
Galileo
Kepler
Sir Francis Bacon

Even Einstein. Einstein was more agnostic than anything. He did not believe in a personal God, but he also did not like being "misrepresented" as atheist (those who don't believe in the existence of any higher power) and also believed a non-created universe (lacking intelligent design) was impossible.

In fact, there were (and are) many Catholic scientists.

As a Catholic, I firmly believe in science. As I type this on my computer, I'm using science... as science created the technology that allowed blogging to be possible. I was vaccinated using science. Scientists came up with cures for diseases that have all but been eradicated, and they continue to make advances.

I don't think the two contradict. God created this world, Got created man. Many use the intelligence and free will God endowed them with, to grow and learn, and utilize what he created on this earth to advance as a people. The earth God created provides many medicinal herbs that help with many ailments, and man's intelligence helps doctors and scientists learn about new ways to use them.

Science exists because God created the earth, then created man, gave man intelligence and free will, and let them go at it.

So science is not contradictory to religion.

And it's not just scientists that think the two can not coexist. There are some religious sects that reject science, and to me, that's rejecting a piece of God. I never understood the "God will heal me so I don't go to a doctor" argument. God made the doctor who wants to heal you, may have even nudged him in the direction of this career. He created the earth where all the resources that could save you comes from, God is in the work that doctor does, and the medicines he uses to treat.

It's like the story of a woman during a flood, a neighbor comes in his car to rescue her but she refuses saying God will deliver her from the flood. As the waters rise... a boat comes by, yet still she refuses help saying God will save her. Then a helicopter comes by as the water rise even higher, and still she rejects the help saying God is going to save her. When she drowns and goes to heaven, she asks God why he let her die when she had faith he'd save her... and God said, "What more could I have done? I sent your neighbor, someone with a boat and even a helicopter, but you refused all three."

I just never understood why you would reject life saving treatment, because "God". God is in that treatment. I personally believe in accepting the treatment that was made through that which God created and placed on this earth for our use, and then praying to God for the treatment to work. But that's me.

Anyway, I don't believe the two are separate and must be at constant odds... yet the scientific community search for ways to disprove the existence of God and find ways to say, "We've discredited the bible." (If only they'd spend so much time finding a cure for cancer with the God given intelligence and materials they have at their disposal.)

There was a recent article entitled: the Bible got it wrong: Ancient Canaanites survived and their DNA lives on in modern-day Lebanese.

the main purpose of the article was to discuss the remains of ancient bodies recently uncovered that were able to tie modern day Lebanese to ancestry with the Canaanites, which supposedly discredits the bible who stated the Canaanites were wiped out in a biblical event. If the DNA found links the Canaanites to those in modern times who come from Lebanon, the bible "obviously got it wrong".

Now, in science, there's a pesky little thing called "research". Research, research, research. It is important to almost any discovery, especially when making a sweeping claim like, "this discovery discredits" anything.

Research is such an important phase in the scientific process, because you wouldn't want to make a wide sweeping statement and claim it is factual, only to be humiliated when your glaring error is pointed out, and worse, pointed out by those who are not a part of the scientific community. That is what is happening with all of the articles on this topic. They are being left embarrassed by the comments section where they're basically getting schooled on how wrong they are and being shown evidence that they did not take due diligence to make sure their statements were accurate.

What is that evidence? Well, after the "destruction" of the Canaanites discussed in the book of Joshua... it's made very clear in the book of Judges that the Canaanites still existed and weren't, in fact, eradicated from the face of the earth. Their DNA still existed and thus could be passed on, which is why it was found in modern day Lebanese.

Manasseh did not take possession of Beth-shean with its towns or of Taanach with its towns. Nor did they dispossess the inhabitants of Dor and its towns, those of Ibleam and its towns, or those of Megiddo and its towns. The Canaanites continued to live in this district. When Israel grew stronger, they conscripted the Canaanites as laborers, but did not actually drive them out. Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, and so the Canaanites lived among them in Gezer.

- Judges 1:27-29

It's obvious, since the book of Judges take place AFTER this alleged "destruction", that this wasn't a full genocide of biblical proportions as the Canaanites were still alive when discussed in Judges, Chapter 1. While it may sound like a mass genocide in Joshua (possibly due to simplification of an ancient translation, or a misinterpretation)... Had these scientists researched the bible (since it is part of their hypothesis about their discovery) before making claims that their findings discredited it... they'd have saved themselves a little credibility.

This proves one thing. Science is not perfect because it is being advanced by humans, which are 100% fallible. All humans err. Even the smartest of us. That does not discredit science and scientific advances... but it's one reason TRUE scientists are open to the idea that a theory could be changed/built on or even wrong.

Everyone seems be believe science is infallible, "Science is based on facts, That is why it is more trust worthy than an imaginary friend in the sky." they say.

Science has been proven wrong on many occasions. Science often contradicts itself. Science told us that vaccines cause Autism. Yet, other scientists believe they have proven the autism link theory to be faulty and the math behind it manipulated.

A few decades ago, Scientists claimed that by 2016, we'd be underwater due to man-made global warming. It was a warning touted by Al Gore who became a billionaire off it. Of course, it's 2017 and we're still here. Now many scientists believe they have proved that Global warming is NOT greatly affected by man, that ice ages and global warmings are naturally occurring events that have happened without man's influence. Some scientists now believe it was a global warming after the first Ice Age that actually killed the last of the woolly Mammoths, and no carbon footprint offsets will make much of a difference.

Science was able to disprove the scientific theory of a static universe (A universe that neither contracts nor expands.) This was proven wrong by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which proved that the universe is unstable, and must either be expanding or contracting. The Redshift effect substantiated this theory.

So, as someone who loves science, lives in an age of science and utilizes sciences, I must say that scientific minds must be very careful about their wording. In this particular case, they made a factual statement about a discovery... only to find out they didn't do proper research before releasing the statements... and were, in fact, wrong. (Sadly, I have not seen one of the articles making that correction). So now one must wonder if it doesn't hurt the credibility of the field that they didn't do the proper research... nor will they correct the statement. Or perhaps science isn't as important as their vendetta against Christianity.

jumping to the "We did it! We discredited the bible!" (and Torah since this is the old Testament) celebration... makes them look foolish, makes them look like anti-religion bigots, and does not do anything to advance science.

This is how science works.

There is an idea

There are tests

There is a lot of research

There is trial and error

a Hypothesis is created

The hypothesis is put to the test

If it fails, it's reconsidered - if it passes it's tested again.

If it can be replicated more than once... it is run through the ringer by fellow scientists

If they agree with the results, it becomes a theory.

Theory - Noun: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

It does not mean - undisputed fact that can never be challenged. Theories are reconsidered, disputed, and proven wrong all the time in the scientific field, which is why it's not the "Fact of Relativity" or the "Fact of static universe" - they are THEORIES. Meaning, "this is what is believed, this is what is accepted in the scientific community"... but it leaves it open for corrections, should someone one day come in and say, "no, this is wrong, the math doesn't add up and here's why."

So to generalize the discovery of Canaanite DNA as "Discrediting the bible", "Proving the bible wrong"... etc. without having done the proper research, and then acting as if it is factual and not a theory... that's not science. That's embarrassing.