Science > God?

VS.

Scientists are crazy God is a large white man in the sky

Has science proven to be better than God? Is this necessarily a bad thing? Can there somehow be a marriage between the two? Will I actually answer any of these questions or just digress into talking about my favorite childhood television and radio shows? Just kidding, we didn't have radio shows when I was a kid.

First, we need to define God: "The supreme or ultimate reality: as A: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe." In other words (mine), that means some dude that may or may not be our reality who is basically the be all end all of everything, ever. It's kind of mind-boggling to think about it, as our tenuous grasps on concepts such as "perfect", and "wisdom", and "goodness" are flawed at best, considering we as a species aren't any of those things. Except me, of course. I'm pretty perfect(ly acceptable looking), wise(assish), and good (at air hockey).

Now, in order to figure out whether or not scientists are playing God, we should first define the phrase "playing God". According to my sources (that hyperlink up there), there are three overlapping meanings:

1.) "The sense of awe rising from new discoveries into the depths of life", which might mean something along the lines of finding a new species of animal (Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp mayhaps?).

2.) "...Supposes that scientists are substituting themselves for God. Like Prometheus, scientists are said to be overstepping finite limits; out of pride or hubris they are risking a backlash from nature." This is pretty self-explanatory, scientists are cocky bastards that don't care what boundaries they overstep, even if nature herself tells them to back the (expletive) off.

3.) "...Refers to the sacralization of DNA." Perhaps this definition is against bringing dinosaurs back from extinction to put them into large parks for people to come look at? Although, that could be one hell of a learning experience for any children interested in paleontology.

Allow me to take on those definitions one by one by one, if you will. I don't think "the sense of awe rising from new discoveries" can get anyones panties in a bunch, as that seems pretty harmless. Discoveries are only discoveries, and awe simply means someone like you or me looking at said discovery and going, "No shit..." with eyes wide and mouth slightly open. Hardly a reason to get up in arms if you ask me, unless someone somewhere has something against awe. Which is completely possible.

The second definition is where people of the religious variety get pissy about science like an old person who can't figure out how to make their VCR work. The definition brings up Prometheus , which is kind of funny because he doesn't have anything to do with a monotheistic God. Although, I guess as a metaphor it works comparing Prometheus to scientists, as scientists could be seen as stealing "fire" from God when they cure the flu, or make someones heart beat when it wasn't supposed to, or any number of other evil sciency things.

But perhaps the worst thing about science in light of that definition is that they're "overstepping finite limits", although it is vague in terms of what limits they're talking about. I'm going to make a logical leap here (much like the Bible - oh snap!), and take that to mean that science has overstepped its bounds in terms of the origins of the universe, evolution, and basically anything else that contradicts Genesis, because Genesis does a good enough job of contradicting itself and doesn't need anyone else to do it for him!

Get it? Genesis?

Is this the great evil of science (disproving the Bible, not Genesis the band)? Why people hate it so? Considering the basic tenets of intolerance most religions have subscribed to throughout history (including now - gay rights anyone? No? Alright...), this seems like a logical argument. Science and religion, in this way, are not compatible. My good friend Dr. Richard Dawkins would like to say something now: "The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

Wow, strong words there Mr. Dawkins. Any rebuttals from anyone else, anywhere? How about you, Dr. Francis Collins? "Yes. God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in."

Wow, that's a strong argument. And one I would like to expound on, if I may. No objections? Good, here it goes: If God cannot be quantified by scientific study, then why is there still an argument about this? If you believe he can be, as Dr. Dawkins seems to, then it only makes rational, logical, more synonyms for those two words, sense that you cease to believe, or at least revise it. Let's face it, the Earth is billions of years old, not thousands. Genetically it's impossible for us to have come from two people, or one really if Eve was a part of Adam's rib. And Noah's Ark, really? Do I really have to point out the flaws in the story of Noah's Ark? I'll leave that to my colleague Anthony.

So... Where did brown cats come from then?

And of course, there's the argument that science (better sit down for this one) isn't necessarily bad. In fact, it could be more merciful than an already all merciful (if vengeful) God. As Minette Martin says in her article, "Nature is astonishingly cruel. Science, by contrast, has the power of mercy." She later goes on to say, "...Whatever we may think about playing God and defying nature, we are doing it already..."

Everything about mankind is unnatural. In this way we shunned God and the world (universe?) he created long ago. Probably around the time we started using toilets. Man has even been known to change the rate of evolution, if you believe the December/January issue of Discover Magazine and the fact that we've wiped out more than one species of animal singlehandedly. On the reverse side of that coin, as Ms. Marrin points out, "...one could argue that rescuing such (disabled) people from extinction is also rescuing their disability from extinction - a godlike activity, surely." Yet I think you would be hard-pressed to find a religious individual that thinks we should just let people with disabilities suffer for it.

So what was the point of this dissertation? The point is that I'm kind of tired about hearing creationists vs. skeptics/atheists/scientists, or religion vs. science, or God vs. science, or Jesus vs. giant ape men or whatever is top billing this week. Science is not bad, nor does it have to do with God in a direct way necessarily. Tolerance would be a good word here, although religion does not have a good track record under that heading as I pointed out above. They can co-exist, as they do in Dr. Collins life, but need to be kept separate. When they're not you get things like creationism, or that horrible movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I don't even want to link that one.

Here are some facts to close this out, the universe is 13.4 billion years old, the Earth about 4.54 billion years old, evolution is a real, observable thing, God is not, everything about man is unnatural, and my hands hurt from typing so damn much.

- Craig

P.S. - I know I didn't tackle the third definition, but I don't need to in order to make my point, whatever that was. I don't remember now.