My first post on this blog (http://bit.ly/1F7fwRf), focused on a wedge that is separating science from religion. This wedge technique, promoted by the Discovery Institute (and employed by other religious groups) is overtly trying to force people to choose between accepting scientific explanations of the natural world and alternative Biblical explanations. Before I am accused of holding a scientistic (and anti-religious) bias, let me be clear that there is, quite certainly, a corresponding wedge from the scientific community that equally tries to force this choice between evidence and belief. I believe the figure above (found via a quick Google search) demonstrates this counterpoint quite effectively.
I was raised in a Christian home and learned much about the Creator of the universe long before learning about the universe itself. Throughout my K-16 schooling, I focused on biology; this remains my primary interest today. Sadly, during my middle and high school years, my growing understanding of the natural world collided with the teachings from my religious leaders. I encountered a supposed contradiction between the teachings of science and those of the church. It was implied (and later asserted) that I should choose which knowledge path I would pursue: that of faith, or of science. I wish my experience was uncommon during this modern age in which we live; sadly, I cannot. There is a wedge that continues to force such a choice and strives to encourage future generation to reject scientific teachings in favor of supernatural causes (Discovery Institute, 1998). The Discovery Institute is not alone in this cause (see Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Creation Research Society). While the primary focus of such organizations centers on questions of origins, their implications can extend far beyond this focus of scientific investigation. Instead, their efforts erode their followers’ confidence in science and create unhealthy skepticism about scientific claims. A major motivation for my involvement in this blog is to counter the effect of this wedge between science and religion. My primary reason to participate in this blog is to help future scientific innovators recognize how they can be BOTH people of science and people of faith. I justify my position for working against this wedge with three major propositions. Continue reading