There is more 'belief' in the Big bang hypothesis of creation than there is in the belief that God created the earth and the Universe.
Now why do I, a scientific person say this?
People who claim to be rational, logical, non faith believing individuals claim that science is in counterposition to faith. I would say that there is more 'faith' and 'belief' in unproven and unprovable premises in many scientific explanations.
For example, the scientific premise that the universe was created with the Big bang is a hypothesis which cant even claim to be a Scientific hypothesis because a Scientific hypothesis requires that the said hypothesis can be tested using scientific method. And in this case it is clear as daylight that no person can PROVE that the universe WAS created through the Big Bang. Just like no person can prove that man descended from apes.
In the recent news there was a claim by a renowned anthropologist stating that man descended from a cross between an ape and a pig. Though these 'scientific' premises seem laughable to persons with awareness of self and faith, they may appear to be entirely plausible explanations for persons with no faith and then these unprovable 'scientific' explanations about creation and origin become their faith.
So we see that even the so called people of no faith do place their faith in certain other things of unprovable provenance and unscientific hypothesis.
As a scientific person with faith I understand the role and need for science to elucidate the things that she can elucidate and accept that not everything need or can be explainable by science because there are many parameters in our existence which are un measurable by using scientific method and only visible using faith and consciousness. These things dwell in a realm beyond current scientific practice and superficial human understanding.
Those who seek the truth truthfully will uncover the truth. But those who seek explanations for assumptions will fail at uncovering the truth.
Now why do I, a scientific person say this?
People who claim to be rational, logical, non faith believing individuals claim that science is in counterposition to faith. I would say that there is more 'faith' and 'belief' in unproven and unprovable premises in many scientific explanations.
For example, the scientific premise that the universe was created with the Big bang is a hypothesis which cant even claim to be a Scientific hypothesis because a Scientific hypothesis requires that the said hypothesis can be tested using scientific method. And in this case it is clear as daylight that no person can PROVE that the universe WAS created through the Big Bang. Just like no person can prove that man descended from apes.
In the recent news there was a claim by a renowned anthropologist stating that man descended from a cross between an ape and a pig. Though these 'scientific' premises seem laughable to persons with awareness of self and faith, they may appear to be entirely plausible explanations for persons with no faith and then these unprovable 'scientific' explanations about creation and origin become their faith.
So we see that even the so called people of no faith do place their faith in certain other things of unprovable provenance and unscientific hypothesis.
As a scientific person with faith I understand the role and need for science to elucidate the things that she can elucidate and accept that not everything need or can be explainable by science because there are many parameters in our existence which are un measurable by using scientific method and only visible using faith and consciousness. These things dwell in a realm beyond current scientific practice and superficial human understanding.
Those who seek the truth truthfully will uncover the truth. But those who seek explanations for assumptions will fail at uncovering the truth.
