Kevin Bridges

It seems to me that someone who hypothesizes that a supreme being doesn't exist is forming their hypothesis without any scientific evidence to support that hypothesis. Science requires empirical knowledge… does that atheist support their conclusion with empirical data? Just because someone believes that something doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that the thing in question really doesn't exist. Just because we can't see, touch, taste, smell or hear germs, that doesn't mean that they don't exist. Science has found them and they definitely exist. The same goes for "God". Although science hasn't put god under the microscope (yet) I myself find it much easier to believe in god than to not believe in god.

All I have to do is walk outside to see evidence of a power much, much greater than I, or of anyone I have ever known or known about. Sit and look at a blade of grass for a while (you may want to do this when no one else is watching). The absolute perfection of that blade of grass is astounding. It grows, it eats, it drinks, it reproduces, it dies and turns to dirt that nurtures other blades of grass. The sheer magnitude and complexity of the chemical reactions involved in supporting the life of that blade of grass is overwhelming. It has cells that in themselves are miniature miracles. In my entire life, I know that I could never, ever create a blade of grass, no matter how educated I become. No one I have ever known is able to make a blade of grass. Nor is anyone I know able to create a single living thing, from the simplest single-celled protozoa to the most complex animal. Since no one or no thing I have ever experienced or heard of is able to create life, I find that I must believe that something else, a power higher than any currently known to science, some unidentifiable power, with the ability to create life, does indeed exist.

Science and religion can be compared to the layers of an onion. Science starts on the outside and peels off layer after layer as new knowledge is acquired. But science can never get to the center of the onion because science can't go back to the beginning of eternity to KNOW what started it all. Religion starts at the center of the onion and words its way outward. It starts at the center because religion requires a leap of FAITH... religion already knows what's at the center of that onion and the answer is god. It is those layers of onion that keep me from accepting theories like the "big bang' theory as the finite answer to creation. So… maybe there was a big bang, but what's under the next layer of onion? What came before the big bang? Something has to exist to make something else. That something may only be a chemical element, an atom, or a part of an atom… but where did that atom come from? Energy doesn't just create itself. This is where faith comes in handy, because it allows us to say "Yes, I believe that god is at the center of the onion. I don't have empirical evidence that he is there, but I don't have any empirical evidence that he's not there, so I'm going to believe it anyway." In my case, I believe that I do have evidence - in that blade of grass.

I consider myself an intelligent person and I believe that science is a wonderful thing. I believe in science. And I also believe in a higher power; you may call that power god if you'd like. That's why if someone asks me if I am "religious", I answer with an emphatic "Yes, I'm very religious. Someone made that blade of grass over there".

The debate between science and religion seems to revolve around this creation issue. Science says that evolution resulted in the species of life existent today, including human beings. I think Darwin was a flipping genius, and I agree with the theory of evolution 100%. But why does that theory have to negate god? I'm not much of a bible person, but I know that the bible (our culture says this bible is the word of god) says god took 7 days to create life. Why should one of god's days be equal to our day? Aren't we being pretty pompous thinking we are able to interpret god's word? Speaking of the onion and infinity, couldn't it be that one of god's days is equal to 1/7 of infinity? (Don't think about that for too long). And that god didn't simply snap his/her fingers and there we were? Maybe god' plan was to set the stage for life to evolve. God provided the raw materials, and than maybe when infinity was 5/6th of the way along, humans evolved.

It seems to me that every creation story, every religion, including ours, is saying the same thing. That thing is that there is something greater than ourselves, something that science and our reasoning minds can't explain. Each story describes a different method, a different series of events, and a different cast of characters, but they all say the same thing. If we open our minds, we can see that all religions are indeed saying basically the same thing. If we try to explain these stories, like the bible, literally instead of figuratively, than we may be missing a whole bunch of valuable information.

So, the bottom line is… Science and religion are indeed after the same thing – truth. They go about it in different ways. But they most certainly can peacefully co-exist. Both are compatible in one's belief system. I guess what all the preceding verbage did was to explain how they could indeed both be compatible in MY belief system.