Sorry for taking so long to respond. You know how busy I am. I will try and do a more direct reply to your most recent post soon, but I thought it would be good to take a step back and look at my philosophy of science and religion.
I have a book called Religions of America. It basically is a Q&A of several different prominent faiths in the U.S., plus some unbelievers. It’s rather interesting, if a bit superficial in its examinations. But one chapter in particular has intrigued me greatly and has made the purchase quite worthwhile; it has forever shaped my own views on science and faith: “The Religion of a Scientist” written by Warren Weaver. It’s a shame I couldn’t simply copy his entire chapter in here, as it is nicely written and summarizes why he has faith in God, but I will do my best to summarize his ideas and contribute my own.
“[T]here are two [scientific concepts] that I judge to be of central significance in any discussion of the relation between science and religion. If I am to advance with any persuasiveness my ideas concerning religion, I must deal briefly with these two most important principles of quantum theory.
“The Uncertainty Principle
“In order to predict where an object will be at some future moment (and the power to predict is the very essence of scientific procedure), one must know where the object is now and how it is moving. In 1927, the young German physicist Heisenberg enunciated the principle when one seeks to measure the location and, at the same time, the velocity of an elementary particle (such as an electron), then as one of these measurements is made with greater and greater accuracy, the simultaneous measurements of the other quantity is necessarily less and less accurate. A joint uncertainty exists in the two measurements, and uncertainty that cannot be avoided.”
Here Mr. Weaver then discusses the reasons for this which, if you are unaware, can be read in this very wordy Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Picking up a few paragraphs later in Mr. Weaver’s chapter: “It is essential to realize that the point here is not that it is difficult simultaneously to measure position and velocity with more and more accuracy, but that it is impossible.
“The recognition of the uncertainty principle made it clear that science cannot furnish us with a rigidly deterministic theory of events. A precise forecast of the future is excluded if we can have only an inaccurate measurement of present circumstances….
“The Principle of Complementarity
“Such considerations led the great physicist Bohr to conclude that the information we can obtain about an object by using one set of experimental conditions of observation should not be expected to be the same as, or necessarily consistent with, the information we obtain when using a different set of observational procedures [emphasis mine]. (If the second set of observational conditions excludes the first set, then the information obtained by using either set must be viewed as complementary to the information obtained by using the other observational procedure.) However contradictory the two sets of information may appear to be, they must be accepted as equally valid.
“This dualistic viewpoint, now referred to as the principle of complementarity, permitted physics to escape from a most embarrassing dilemma. Under some experimental conditions, electrons (and also photons, which are the quantum units of light) behaved as though they were particles, like exceedingly small bullets moving at very high speeds. But under other experimental conditions, electrons and photons behaved as though they were wavelike in character, producing diffraction patterns, just as waves do.”
Here I interrupt Mr. Weaver to point out for the benefit of any reader the real dilemma here. These are not merely light particles traveling in bursts like waves. While science clearly demonstrates under certain experimental conditions that light is provided by speedy particles, science also demonstrates that light is actually the disruption of a medium. Remember, waves are not something independent in and of themselves, but rather the disruption of a medium, like ripples on a surface of water. The waves are not pieces of water, but energy moving the water in peaks and troughs. But the only medium is the electromagnetic field through which light travels. It’s confusing, I know, and I can’t claim to fully comprehend it. This link might help: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2087/how-can-light-be-both-a-wave-and-a-particle
Said Mr. Weaver: “To an old-fashioned physicist, all this sounded like nonsense! What is an electron—a particle or a wave? It cannot be both: yet that, in fact, is precisely the answer! It can be both. Bohr’s principle of complementarity indicated that under one set of observational curcumstances, electrons must be considered to be particles, whereas under other observational circumstances, they must be considered to be wavelike. By accepting the two contradictory descriptions, and byusing each under appropriate circumstances, we have a richer, more satisfying total concept than is furnished by either description alone....
“To summarize: quantum theory, and particularly the uncertainty principle and the principle of complementarity, have made it clear to us that:
“1. The observations of the scientist are never strictly objective but depend upon the observer and upon the circumstances of observation.
2. The measurements of science are necessarily subject to some imprecision.
3. Scientific theories cannot be rigidly deterministic.
4. Science accepts, and in fact views as desirable, the sort of contradiction that is recognized and utilized in the principle of complementarity.
“My Religious Belief....
“…I [have been] sustained—and liberated—by the concept of complementarity. For if I ask a question from one point of view, I will have one answer. But if I ask the same question from another, and quite different, point of view, I may very well have a second answer. The second may be inconsistent with the first, but it can be viewed as complementary. And the two answers taken together will provide a richer, truer picture than either separately.”
He then talks about the religion and science change, though in different ways: while religion keeps its core largely the same, its more superficial aspects change, while in science it is the superficial aspects that offer more certainty, while the core understanding of the universe changes. And in the end he closes with how he sees the universe at times with reverence of the order of the universe and its Creator, while at other times, especially when in deep emotional need, He looks for the comfort of his Father.
I hope I have done this man’s writings justice, as I find it brilliant, and hopefully my liberal quoting has not bored any readers, CP3S in specific. I certainly don’t see everything equally as Warren Weaver, as I am more dogmatic in my religious beliefs that he describes himself. But the core message is the same. I understand that at many junctures, science and religion seem to entirely contradict without any hope of integration. I will not state where the greater truth of one ends and another begins, as I don’t feel that is necessary or conducive to my fuller understanding. For the present I am content to use different sets of “observational data” (scientific evidence vs. scripture and revelation) to guide my thinking as applicable. If I’m discussing the history of the universe, I will talk about a 14 billion year-old universe with a 4.6 billion year-old earth with a 200,000 year-old species called homo sapien. But if I am discussing the Creation, Fall, and Salvation of mankind, I will discuss God creating the earth at his command, and Adam and Eve emerging from the Garden of Eden ~ 7,000 years ago and spawning the rest of the human race. I do not get hung up on this contradiction. The constant between all this, the c of my equation that fits into both pictures for me and fits, is that God created this universe, as he is the great Lawgiver that all natural laws obey, that Jesus Christ is his Son, and that he suffered and died for my sins to appease the spiritual laws of the God so that I may again return to live with my Father.
If you’ve got the stamina, I have one more example for you. In science there are two very prominent and essential theories that shaped physics from the 20th Century till now: the Theory of Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics Theory. These two theories have given far greater understanding to mankind about how our universe does what it does. Both have stood up to intense scientific scrutiny. And yet they contradict each other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
(I won’t pretend to understand these concepts beyond a basic level, nor to have completely read any of these three articles)
No one has been able to satisfactorily explain these two theories and how they might coincide, though several flawed ideas have been postulated. Assuming both theories are correct and true, how is it that they cannot be reconciled?
Perhaps one day they will be. To me, science and religion may seem irreconcilable, but I believe that one day, a day long after I’ve died, I will understand how it all fits. For now, I will rely on my two different observational methods: the scientific method and revelation from God.