How great is God–beyond our understanding! The number of His years is past finding out. Job 36:26
I remember some time ago reading that a scientist believes they have actually sent light faster than the “speed of light”…or …at least what they thought to be the speed of light. I read the article and I have to admit, although I didn’t understand it completely, I was impressed with their research.
Do you know, however, what the story didn’t tell me? It didn’t tell me who made the light! It didn’t tell me who marks off the light in the sky or who separates light from darkness. There was no mention of containing light; holding it for another day.
You see, I know someone who manufactures light. ‘m not talking about with flashlights or other instruments, I mean from scratch; the old fashioned way!
While I really am excited for the new potential discovery, although I haven’t figured out a practical application for it (and the article stated the scientists haven’t either). Perhaps it is simply good to know that something can travel faster than 186,000 miles per second.
What I know is that scientist will never understand the real basis of light; at least not in a laboratory. They will never fully understand the God who is not confined by time or space or distance or speed.
Real discovery; real truth, is found, not in the elements of this world, but in its Maker; our Lord and Savior…Have you discovered Him?
Does science help you or hinder you in your belief in God? I’d love to hear from you.
Hey, Ron, here's a good rabbit trail to go down. I will admit up front that I am not a Bible scholar so the questions I pose are from things I have been told over my lifetime.
If we are supposed to take the Genesis account, story, whatever as fully true, why do we not treat Revelation the same way? I've always been told that when we read the creation account in Genesis that it says what it means; period. But those same individuals will say that Revelation is…well something to be interpreted. That these places aren't really what they are called in the Bible; they are Russia or Israel or the U.S. or some other country and the passages about the sun are most likely nuclear explosions, and so forth.
Just wondering.
That is a great rabbit trail…and could be an enlightening discussion….Hope someone chases it! 🙂
Personally, science does not hinder my belief in God. I do think, though, that it can, in a general sense, have that effect on people. I believe in the creation account in the Bible. But, there is at least some evidence for a creation that falls more along the lines of what an evolutionist would glean from observable data. But, as Laurinda points out, what is a day and who's frame of reference do we use for that term in the Bible? Creation scientists have come up with explanations for most if not all of the questions arising out of creation and for the questions that arise from most of Genesis. However, my personal opinion, is that those are at best weak explanations. For me, it's a matter of faith and although my, or any Christian's, interpretation of the Genesis accounts may not be spot on, the bottom line is that He made it all.
I think that we as humans always try and make sense of our surroundings. And even as a Christian, there are things we just can't explain. Take eternity for example. I can just about, at the limit of my imagination, conceive of something never ending; almost. But it's beyond my comprehension to conceive of something never having a starting point. Science tries to explain it by the Big Bang Theory, but I'm not sure even that says what came before the Big Bang and will the expansion and contraction of the universe continue forever and what are we expanding into and on and on.
Science will probably never "prove" the Big Bang Theory or evolution or many of these theories since the time frame to do so and the evidence needed will never come together to allow that to happen. Christians also can not "prove" creation as described in the Bible. No human alive on this earth today was alive then and I don't see anyone coming up with a practical time machine any time soon. Still, as Noel points out, there is room in our world for both.
The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.
Light is merely electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not. Because it is radiation, it is a form of energy and, consistent with the law of conservation of energy, can neither be created nor destroyed. Light exists in tiny "packets" called photons, and exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave–particle duality. There are many sources of light <a href="http://(http://bit.ly/cgpoDf),” target=”_blank”>(http://bit.ly/cgpoDf), but these "sources" are merely events which describe shifts in a physical state between matter and energy or between different kinds of energy. The "creation" of light is no more mysterious than the "creation" of water from ice or steam from water.
If what you want to do is make a statement about the creation of the universe, that's all well and good. I support your right to do that. It's just epistemologically and empirically wrong, however, to say things like, "What I know is that scientist will never understand the real basis of light; at least not in a laboratory." Number one: you don't "know" that, though you may believe it strongly and, perhaps, even with some justification. Number two: scientists do understand the real basis of light, and their understanding is not necessarily dependent upon their physical location (it applies both inside and outside of laboratories). There appears to be a substantial discrepancy between what we understand through empirically verifiable science and the statement you made which I quoted.
I do not believe that science and faith must always be at odds. I believe there is room in the universe and the human experience for both. We do them both – and ourselves – a grave injustice, however, when we recklessly use our words to describe things beyond our comprehension. It is best to remain silent about things we do not understand, and praise God for his grace, love, mercy and compassion towards creatures as relatively tiny and individually insignificant as we are without Him. Give credit where credit is due. Give God credit for the creation of the universe (to the extent that science lacks conclusive evidence of a more reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe). Give science credit for explaining what it can of the universe. In this way, we maintain our intellectual honesty, our integrity, our reason, our faith and the best tool ever developed by man for understanding the observable world around him.
Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly don't use this as a forum for arguing, but I always welcome your opinions.
Oh, I respect that. Nobody wants an internet argument. (http://tinyurl.com/d92y3y)
I just wanted to make the point that, when it comes to discussions of science and faith, we don't do anyone any favors by saying things that are verifiably inaccurate. I love your blog. Usually good stuff here. I was just so surprised to read something so blatantly wrong, I felt compelled to present an alternative perspective.
And I should say this, too: I agree with your conclusion, "real truth, is found, not in the elements of this world, but in its Maker." I just had a problem with the way you got there in this post. Thanks for being a gracious host.
Thanks Noel
GREAT QUESTION.
Science does not hinder my belief in God. I think it all points towards God. I'm not a expert, but I did take lots of graduate physics courses while working on my engineering graduate degrees. Physics has become a hobby of mine. Romans 1:20 says the invisible nature of God is made visible through the elements of this world.
In Einstein's theory of relativity he shows how time, speed and distance are relative depending on your frame of reference. I'm sitting here typing and my speed is zero. Or is it? At a fixed point in space – I'm moving at approximately 1000 mph (the rotation of the earth). It's all relative to your frame of reference. I guess the easiest example is two cars on a freeway. A person standing by the side of the road would perceive 2 cars, one moving 65 mph and the other 67mph, going those two speeds. If I'm sitting in the 65 mph car, the 67 mph is SLOWLY creeping past me. I'm perceiving it as 2 mph.
What Einstein also showed no matter what frame of reference you are in, the speed of light is always perceived the same. It's called the Law of Propagation of Light. This is the reason Einstein's theory will always be a theory. All this says to me is Jesus is the light and he is the absolute truth. He is the frame of reference we need to be viewing our world through.
Einstein also showed Light has a dual nature it behaves as a wave and as a particle. Seeing the dual nature in an optics lab was inspiring. I think light is triune in nature because of the Trinity. When I figure out the 3rd nature of light, I'll write my own book and hopefully when the Nobel Prize in physics too. LOL
I also think evolutionary scientist are unknowingly studying the science of creation. Time is relative so their frame of reference is off. Each day is but a 1000 years and 1000 years is but a day to the Lord (2 Pet 3:8). I don't see anything wrong with studying the "how" of God. They believe it's all random, but we know better.
Christians have beaten up scientist too much and I think it turns them away from God. There are lots of Christian scientists. These folks need our prayers and support.
Thanks for letting me geek out this morning.
Let me clarify, creation was instantaneous in the eyes of God. But since creation, species have gone extinct or adapted due to environmental disasters or the influence of man. That is the basis of Darwin's work which is the foundation of the theory of evolution. Evolutionist will never find a missing link.
Good thought. Thanks!
Thanks Laurinda. I appreciate your thoughts. I certainly wasn't bashing scientists, just pointing out that God can never be fully understood.
I didn't think you were bashing scientist. In general Christians seem to do this. Whenever the latest scientific discovery is hitting the headlines, it seems like Christians automatically reject it without much thought.
Thanks. you're gracious. I actually love science. I don't think we'll ever have all the answers, but I love exploring them and applaud those who do. To me, the study of science actually enhances my view and belief in God. He gets bigger the more I know!