Religion, Physics, and Biology

A lot of people these days seem to feel that science is at war with religion.  I'm not convinced that it is, or that it ever was.

The most famous science-vs-religion battle was between Galileo and the Catholic Church, who insisted that the sun revolved around the earth.  It is worth noting that in defending himself, Galileo pointed out that the Church had had no problem with the theory when it was proposed by Copernicus; indeed, a famous Catholic theologian named Andreas Osiander wrote the preface to Copernicus' book on the same subject.  Galileo also quoted St. Augustine and argued that heliocentrism was not contrary to scripture.

Well, we all know how that story played out.  The footnote is that Galileo is now buried in one of the largest cathedrals in Italy.

The point is not that the Catholic church was wrong.  The point is that Galileo, the poster boy for the supremacy of science over religion, believed the two were completely compatible, and was in fact a devout Catholic himself.  Indeed, when given enough time, the prevailing religious view acquiesced.

The link between science and religion runs deep.  Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) has a creation story that's somewhat different from Genesis, but more closely matches the modern quantum physics model (even though the Kabbalah creation story was written down hundreds of years ago).  Moreover, even the top physicists admit that there had to have been an incredibly powerful creationary force at the beginning of the universe--a force that was capable of breaking the laws of physics.

Stephen Hawking once mused that we're lucky the laws of physics are what they are, or life as we know it could not exist.  He was talking about principles of quantum physics, such as the "strong force" that holds atoms together.  I don't think science will every be able to answer the question: "Why are the laws of physics the way they are?"  One could argue that it is simply a matter of tautology; if the laws of physics prevented life from forming, then we wouldn't be sitting here wondering about it.  But that argument falls short (and isn't really tautological anyway).

This morning, I was thinking about the Children's song "Oats Peas Beans and Barley Grow."  The song ends with the farmer marveling at the life force he's been able to harness.  But what strikes me is that the world is so malleable.  We live in a world where it is possible to make plants grow in a controlled manner.  We live in a world where we can change plant and animal species, through selective breeding and splicing.  Organisms on this planet are made up of DNA that can be severed and recombined, creating entirely new organisms.  If we smash two subatomic particles together at very high speeds, we are able to create new subatomic particles.  We essentially live in a giant sandbox.  Everything in nature can be
manipulated, as long as we know how.

We could just as easily have existed in a world where things couldn't be manipulated: a wild boar would never become a domesticated pig, no matter how many generations you bred; DNA could have been a fixed thing, impossible to change; atoms could have been constructed much more strongly, preventing us from opening them up and learning their secrets.  We could still have survived in such a world, but the miracles of nature would never have been opened to us the way they are, in this world.

What I'm trying to say is that perhaps God intentionally created a universe whose secrets could be unlocked.  Maybe there's a reason God gave us a world that could be manipulated.  And maybe that's why the majority of American scientists are religious (or at least open-minded): because the very fact that we can unlock these secrets is itself a gift from God.

I don't see my position as apologist.  I'm not saying "science is right, but only because God made it that way."  A proper religious view is that God is in everything, and that resonates with me every time science reveals a new miracle.

Ultimately, I reject the science-vs.-religion arguments.  The arguments always presuppose that science and religion do the same thing.  They don't.  Both have importance places in modern life, and neither is dispensable.  Every time I learn about a new scientific discovery, it only strengthens my faith.