Science Still Can't Explain This Biological Mystery, But Scientists Like to Pretend Otherwise

I have a bachelors degree in chemistry and I was a nuke. So, I know some science. I'm also a rabbi. I'm in the camp that says that science cannot explain everything. The late Professor Hawking and others proffered the multiverse as a theory to explain it all. The rub is that this just kicks the can down the road, which for religion is fine, but for science is not.

Bottom line, in the future, science MAY be able to find all the answers, but for now, my scientific knowledge strengthens my faith.

This was a good read; thank you.

Before I get into the article's primary points...here's the single most disturbing quotation from within it: "We think it’s time for the faithful to get over themselves. The culture wars will end when it finally does. We’re waiting, though not patiently, because much is at stake."

This statement, obviously made without true malice or hatred, never the less indicates a true lack of comprehension for just how impossible this request it. The very fact that thousands of years after the fact, people of reasonable education, sanity and relevance continue to subscribe to faith-based ideology (myself included), should be enough evidence that "we" aren't going to "fade away" any time soon. Certainly, the reduction of relevance has led to "fewer" of us...but there are still, and will always be "many" of us. There is no conceivable way to change this short of actual suppression, through either reduction in legal rights, if not out-right physical attack. Consequently, that's why "we" still fear these opinions. Simply put, they cannot "out-argue" us all, on all points, and may not be considering the possible ramifications of attempting less "benign" forms of persuasion.

Now-on to the article. I enjoyed it, both for its detailed explanation of prevailing scientific thought, and the admission that there remain "unanswered" questions. True enough, the presence of a question does not implicitly provide the answer...but it remains a mystery to me why Science cannot seem to make peace with the lack of omnipotence. It seems logical that there's an ulterior motive.

Let's say for example that a scientists stated to me, "I admit that a divine being is possible, I simply find the theological explanations for observable processes at best, metaphorical." Such a statement would be neither "threatening" to my beliefs, nor without logical assertion. I may counter that a large component of "faith" is the discipline of "belief" without question...but again, neither would I be terribly surprised (or my belief shattered) to discover that some of what is contained within theology is indeed allegorical. The issue comes from what seems to be Scientific "fear" of admitting "holes" in their knowledge; why do we need to know all the answers? The article seems to point to a possible reason when the author states, "The culture wars are at present a battle between two movements that claim to have explained what neither has explained, what organisms are and how they emerged from chemistry."

It seems clear to me that "Science" (I speak broadly) "needs" to know the origin of life. Why? Is it because doing so will "prove" the basis for conventional morality, even civilization, is "wrong"? If so, then what is "Science" attempting to resolve with the existing model? Once more, the implication is clear...with "proof" of a non-divine origin, society is presumed to dispense with the expectations of belief in the divine. Humbly, I suggest this is the Scientific community's greatest self-generated weakness. There is and should be a line where philosophy and scientific observation diverge, yet continue to co-opt one another. I could counter that the "culture wars" would also end should Science ever embrace this concept.

Science is a lost science of late. They assume much about the natural world even though it is improvable or not proven to date. Origins is one example of this. Science is convinced on the origins of humans (and animals) and how we came into existence and how we "evolved" even though they cannot prove it. Because science wants a "scientific" explanation, they insist on standing firm on evolution. Creation is faith based and requires a creator (God) and they cannot have any of that God stuff around.

In order to believe in evolution you must believe that we started as single celled organisms (even though science cannot explain where these organisms came from) and then over the course of hundred of millions of years we evolved from a single celled creature into fully functioning human beings (as did every other creature on the planet). The number of mutations to achieve human status must be in the billions but that is what you have to believe to accept evolution. Evolution requires greater belief and faith than accepting a creation model of origins.