Part II B: Science is not Atheism: Empirical Data is For every belief to interpret
Science as a discipline is not supposed to find its roots in faith. It is supposed to find its roots in intellectual pursuit and then put faith in action to prove a question empirically. How long is the “faith in action” (hypothesis) part supposed to go on? When does the “faith in action” (hypothesis) for science start to look more religious than scientific? These questions do not diminish science as a discipline nor do they take away from science, the ability to do what it’s intended to do. These questions only help to clarify where people on an individual basis are rooted.
To illustrate my point I will attempt to expound upon one particular hot topic that charges both the scientific community and religious community at large. Science should be impartial, but those who hold to religions like atheism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc… typically get charged. Over one hundred and fifty years ago a hypothesis was put forward by Charles Darwin concerning evolution; he wrote a book called: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, (better known as: The Origin of Species). Because of this “theory” many scientists have put the scientific method into practice and some atheists have come to believe this is the best known answer to the origins of life; while other have reserved judgment. While still others have come to the conclusion that evolution does not add up. In the process man has gained an invaluable amount of information concerning the biology of man and other species.
Much in the way of understanding our genetic makeup as well as the genetic makeup of many other species has come forth recently because of this particular scientific discipline. One particular study has been in the works for many years; mapping the human genome. Scientists have recently completed an extensive amount of research that has found our genome to be over three billion base pairs. In the process they have found that our genome is only slightly different from that of many primates. There are only about 500 base pairs that are noticeably different between humans and primates. These differences are significant though they be quantitatively small (500 out of over 3 billion is a small number).
Many proponents for evolution believe this to be good evidence leading to the proof of a purely naturalistic evolutionary process for life and go as far as to say God is not necessary. This is the religion of atheism. Scientifically speaking, is that a correct assumption? Does having a small difference in DNA, RNA and Genome structure prove one species evolved from another? Does it also prove that life’s inception had to be natural? What happens when a hypothesis has been exhausted and no provable answers come to bear fruit for the purposed question? DNA, RNA coding is so advanced that it blows our binary coding away! Every evolutionary hypothesis that suggests that life could arise on its own by purely natural circumstances has been either disproved or on the verge of disproved. Not one hypothesis has stood the test of true science.
The flavor of the decade is abiogenesis, which is purely faith based if one believes it true. There is no physical evidence to support it. The atheist will say that young scientific inquiries always have problems. But the reality is that they must hold on to such things to give their world view a chance at being logical. Abiogenesis only works if your have blind faith because no real evidence proves it. And what makes the faith blind is the fact that we are dealing with the physical world, not metaphysical; and there is no logical reason to blindly believe in the physical when there is no evidence. It is similar to the time when man believed the earth to be flat when all the evidence points to a spherical earth. It is similar to believing the earth is only 10,000 years old when all the evidence points to the earth being much older.