The building blocks of atomic nuclei have gone from protons and neutrons, to quarks. Then, finally to strings and membranes or branes. Well, not finally as, I’m sure, there’s a new model just on the horizon.
At the other end of the scale, the universe was created with a big bang, moving from a singularity (an infinitesimally small point) via inflation. That’s an expansion moving faster than the speed of light. What’s with these lead-footed physicists?
But, to make things worse, the Big Bang is being disputed. One recent school of thought posits that the universe is nothing more than a 3-dimension brane of a 4-dimension black hole. I’m not about to explain this. Another idea floating around is that two enormous branes carrying parallel universes collided creating a big bang and that this happens over and over.
I’m not being anti-science here. In fact, I like science, especially physics. I find all of this totally fascinating. But, when a discipline that changes faster than a chameleon inside a kaleidoscope tries to refute another that’s been consistent for two thousand years I find the effort a bit off-putting. What I’m talking about is the effort of some physicists to refute Christianity based on their field of study. Science probes the physical universe using a method of hypothesis and experimentation. Ideas are adopted and discarded over time as more information is obtained.
All this is takes place, of course, on an unchanging foundation. In physics, as mentioned earlier, Newtonian mechanics is unchanged. In chemistry, with the exception of a few additions of new elements, the periodic table is stable. And, in human biology, Grey’s Anatomy, with the exception of a few tweaks, is pretty much unaffected since its first printing in 1858.
These foundational truths don’t dispute Christianity. If anything, they reinforce the basic idea of the beauty and unifying nature of creation and, by extension, shouts the existence of the Creator.
When you base your dispute with Christianity on the changeable and hotly contested cutting edge part of your science it really doesn’t work well. For one thing, the basis of your argument against Christianity is ephemeral. What you contend as your definite proof today may be a discarded theory tomorrow. The foundations of Christianity are firm unchanging vistas, whereas the modern footings of science are a high wire strung between two skyscrapers in a gale force wind. Which would you want to cross?
Science should be celebrated as a discipline that improves our physical well-being. It is essential and should move forward with all speed and with due educational and financial support.
On the other hand, Christianity is essential for our spiritual well being. Lives are changed for the better. Suffering is alleviated. Lost people are saved and sins are forgiven through Christ’s mediation.
Perhaps that old saying applies here: “East is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet.” At any rate, they are not mutually exclusive disciplines. And maybe Rodney King had the right idea: “Why can’t we all just get along?”