+-+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|S|---------[The Holy Bible © 1997-1998 Self-Induced Negativity]-----------| 
+-+---------------------------[Science Vs. God]----------------------------+ 
|I|----------------------------[By: Delirium]------------------------------|
+-+--------------------[Released: February 12, 1999]-----------------------+
|N|-----------------------[http://www.sinnerz.com]-------------------------|
+-+------------------------------------------------------------------------+


I find it perplexing how religious leaders, creationist "scientists," 
or however they designate themselves seek to justify the existence of 
God through science. These are basically some thoughts I came up with 
in "Theory of Knowledge," a class that in "theory" would be fucking 
awesome. All ruined by a shitty teacher. How many times has that 
happened, eh? Anyway, I digress back to God, schmod. heh. 

Without meaning to sound apologetic, I realize there have been a 
million points of view trying to prove one side or the other. Well, I'm 
not out to do that, because frankly, it isn't possible. Science and 
religion are based on two different premises:

God: God does whatever the fuck he wants to do. He creates the 
universe, there it is. One does not question God's works, merely 
accepts them, as he is all knowing. Yadda yadda.
Science: Also based on "faith" (if that is the correct word) in a way, 
that unless acted upon by some force, things resume their pattern of 
behavior.

For example, unless a large amount of energy changes the orbit of the 
earth, the sun will always rise in the East. Unless something powerful 
like a magnetic field disrupts two objects, they will attract each 
other according to Newton's laws of gravity. Planets don't suddenly 
change orbit. The law of gravity doesn't unexpectedly reverse itself 
and objects begin to fly off the face of the planet without reason. If 
these laws could suddenly change, then studying science would be 
pointless. Science's strength is rooted in its methods, and these 
methods would be rendered null and void if one could not expect some 
factors to remain consistent, and thus be ruled out. If the nature of 
the universe changed arbitrarily, through its own whim or the whim of a 
higher power, then science would have no validity nor applicable 
purpose.

Science will not prove the existence of God. A God that could change 
the nature of the universe and science altogether would be anathema to 
science, negating its purpose. Also, science's proofs work deductively, 
not inductively. We cannot absolutely ascertain the cause from the 
effects, although we can make good guesses: we shall never prove God's 
existence through his "works." Some may make compelling arguments, but 
certainty, or an acceptable level of certainty, will not come from 
science. 

Another thing that pisses me off is creationists, or at least ignorant 
creationists. The main argument I tend to hear is that evolution is 
merely a" theory", and that because some newer evidence has 
contradicted previous theory, evolution on a whole must be dismissed. 
Apparently, these bible beaters tend to forget that much of science is 
theory: for example, the atomic theory. I would put money on the fact 
that the ratio of pamphlets that condemn the atomic theory as wrong and 
should not be taught in schools is far smaller than the ratio of 
propaganda packets that claim evolution is completely wrong. No 
chemistry or physics classes are offered that explain another view of 
the atom, even though the atomic theory has been revised many times and 
some aspects proven wrong and changed. Creationists do not seem to 
protest so vehemently at this. Why? Because it does not directly 
challenge the basis of their beliefs.  I don't see what the fuck they 
care about: just as science will never prove God's existence, it can 
never negate God's existence. Faith does not rely on physical evidence, 
science does. It is also fairly well known that a man confirmed dead 
for 3 days will not rise up to heaven and visit his followers as a 
ghost for 40 days or whatever, and yet religion doesn't dispute science 
on this part. I doubt many religious people would argue with a doctor 
who said that placing one's hands on a person's head would not cure 
them of a deadly disease, and medicine is needed (some exceptions to 
this, of course). But people still believed that these things happened, 
in contradiction to tons of evidence that they cannot happen. Faith is 
independent of science.

Another thing. Catholics in the US campaign violently against abortion, 
claiming it is only God's right to take life. How much do they campaign 
to end the death penalty? Something else to think about.
Religion is based on the could, the might-be, the hope that something 
out there can help us. Science is reality and the hope that mankind can 
better itself. How do we choose a balance between the two?

"God was my copilot, but then we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him."
				delirium