If I were not a Christian, in my primary thought/belief context, I would want to be a scientist as my primary orientation in a humanistic account for that which has been, is and will be. This is to say that I have a high opinion of science, and that which is truly verifiable in science is accepted by me. In my orientation, there is no conflict between pure science and pure Christian faith. Whatever is found to exist, in my view, is accommodated for in extensions of the creativity of God, but may be distorted in the present circumstances by the infusion of factors that violate God. Why an omnipotent God would permit sin is beyond human evidences, understandings, and conclusions. Sin is a mystery matter that distorts our systems, originally pristine, offered to mankind. The accident of sin changed the primary point. We want recovery, under God. If in human objectivity, those who do not believe in any deity, but holding interest in the creation do what they can to advance the margins of truth in nature. We are grateful. These humanists (bound by measurable evidence) and insightful Christians (bound by both measurable and spiritual evidence) ought to be friends. The conflict creates barriers for the advancement of contexts of interest and interpretation.
A major problem in this conflict is found in the hypocrisy, the ignorance, the distortions (sins) of many participants. Deviations from the main road of search for truth are found on all sides. The news reports often point out the failures, and oddities, the hypocrisies found in persons of faith. This becomes objectionable when used against the sincere, seeking and careful student of faith. No respectable scientist would abandon science because of renegade scientists, or those who are trying to make a name for self by some new discovery. No person of genuine faith ought to lose that faith for the faith failure of others who may become apostate. The failures in any camp do not define the camp. However, the results are often more than mere embarrassments. They become barriers to truth whether in humanistic or spiritual terms. Is the following a failure of scientists, or is it a failure of science? I do not believe it is a failure of science when science is rightly understood and followed. Graham Naik discussed the theme: Scientists’ Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results: Two years ago, a group of Boston researchers published a study describing how they had destroyed cancer tumors by targeting a protein called STK33. Scientists at biotechnology firm Amgen Inc. quickly pounced on the idea and assigned two dozen researchers to try to repeat the experiment . . . . It proved to be a waste of time and money. After six months of intensive lab work, Amgen found it couldn’t replicate the results and scrapped the project. I was disappointed but not surprised, said Glenn Begley . . . at Amgen . . . “more often than not, we are unable to reproduce findings published by researchers in journals. This is one of medicine’s dirty secrets: Most results, including those that appear in top-flight peer-reviewed journals, cannot be reproduced. The article proceeds, deploring the state of the current context of research – and the disappointment it engenders in a $100 billion-year enterprise. Only 21% of the published studies could be fully replicated. Over 64% could not. The STK33 controversy continues. If the evidence is as reported, we are appalled. (W.S.J. 12/02/2011 – summarized here)
William Foxwell Albright, touted the ideal leader of modern archaeologists, and I discussed this matter of faith and science. Returning to his Johns Hopkins University after our discussions, he sent me his History, Archaeology and Christian Humanism which had been published a year earlier (1964). He referred to our theme here noting that he was troubled over the tension in science against the church, and vice-verse. What a blessing cooperation would be. Why did the controversy begin? Why does it continue? Why is it important? The negatives in it all relate to arrogance, inconsistency, misunderstanding about how we learn, wonder, conclude in the contexts of our lives. If there is a faith context that includes God there will be amended interpretations of facts and assumptions. We would, if we are seekers of truth help each other in discovering truth. Perhaps the era may come when we truly celebrate, not only what we have learned, but what may yet be learned. The negatives of our lives measure mental and emotional darkness. We can find the affirmatives, the true and the beautiful. Light pushes back darkness. We learn to be more careful, and humbled, when we learn we failed. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020