My Thoughts About “Why Religion And Science Should Not Conflict” by Bill

Allen, and Related Comments on Scribd

By Troy Meyer

My Thoughts About the Article

I recently came across an article on Scribd titled “Why Religion And Science Should Not Conflict”
which tries to differentiate science from religion in a practical sense. The author of this article states
that, “Religion itself is a way of explaining that which is inherently unexplainable. That is not just the
nature of religion, but its definition and reason for existence.” This statement in Bill's article lends no
credibility to the whole nature of the article.

I also have to courteously disagree on another statement contained in Bill Allen's article; that “the six-
day-creation story...is easily shown to be false by provable evidence uncovered by science.” This to me
seems to be an oxymoron and counter to his article in defining the roles of religion and science, as I
don't believe that the purpose of science has anything to do with explaining creation.

Unfortunately the author of the article does not include a reference to the “provable evidence
uncovered by science” he mentions in his article. First of all, evidence does not need to be proven, only
interpreted. For example; there is blood all over a floor, is this a murder scene? Or a butcher shop? I
digress...

If science is based on proving an idea or theory, by repeating multiple times with little or no deviation
of the outcome from the first attempt to the last in order to be able to make future predictions, how can
science prove that the earth was not created in 6 days? Only by creating or observing something created
in a similar fashion, repeatedly, for a period longer or shorter than 6 days.

Science is useful for theorizing, testing, explaining and harnessing the laws of the Earth and universe,
but it cannot explain anything about creation since nothing on Earth or elsewhere is observably created.
The scientific law of conservation of mass/matter states that “matter cannot be created nor destroyed,
although it may change form.” How can science then prove or find false the way matter (such as the
Earth, universe and all in it) is created if it has already proven that matter cannot be created or
destroyed?

I am afraid any scientific alternative I have knowledge of regarding creation oversteps the boundaries
of science. Bill Allen's article would have me believe that science should have all the answers and that
religion is only the catch-all for all things that cannot be explained by science.

The Bible explains creation very plainly in John 1:3 “All things were made through Him, and without
Him nothing was made that was made.” (New King James Version)

I don't find it difficult to accept that something so amazingly beautiful and fragile as the Earth could be
created by God. It would be harder for me to accept it as a cosmic accident, given that there is no other
planet within our knowledge that is capable of life. As humans, I believe we find simple things very
hard to accept.

Science has proven the laws of gravity, electricity, and physics but these things have always existed,
we just didn't have a law about them until theories were repeatedly proven to be true. Can science then
even explain the 'how' of creation? I believe science is just a way for us to test theories about the laws
that we are forced to exist within, and enables us to use these laws to our benefit.

My Thoughts About the Comments Regarding the Literal Meaning of 6 Day Creation

Scribd user fb-160200851 entered this comment related to the article on June 18th, 2007:

“I think any literature professor would agree when I say that while the Bible contains numerous
accuracies and concrete facts it also, through apocalyptic literature and symbolism,
communicates a greater over arching meta narrative.

The first element of which is that God is in control. In early hebraic culture and literature seven
represents completeness. Thus creation was simply completed by God. This makes more sense
when placed along side the Biblical claim that a day is as 1000 years and 1000 years is as a day
to God. Interestingly there is a second account of creation in Genesis chapter 2 that is not
broken into days and has things being created in a different order. Looking again to literary
analysis for an explanation one will find that in hebraic literature those concepts that are most
important are repeated. Here the concept of \"God in control\" is the repeated theme.”

I am assuming that by the comments, “the Bible...also, through apocalyptic literature and symbolism,
communicates a greater over arching meta narrative.” as well as, “Thus creation was simply completed
by God.”, the writer means that the 6 days of creation in Genesis is not meant to be taken literally.
Rather, based on my assumption, the 6 years referred to in Genesis may actually mean closer to 6000
years (or any other number we as science worshiping humans are comfortable with), using 2 Peter 3:8
as a reason for this belief.

By supposing that 6 days is really 6000 years I believe we are putting the Bible in a realm that makes it
easier for us to bridge the gap between science and religion and bringing it out of the realm of context.
The Bible was not written for God, so to quote “a day is as 1000 years and 1000 years is as a day TO
GOD “ (my emphasis), I believe is bringing the text out of context. The text quoted is a letter from
Peter presented as a comfort that God's promises will come to the recipients of the letter and that God
had not forgotten, though his timing is not the same as ours as humans.

Genesis chapter 2 also does not appear to be a separate account of creation, rather the continuation of
the narrative in chapter 1. I don't believe there is anything in chapter 2 of Genesis that contradicts the
first chapter. The different order referred to in this comment is not at all related to creation of the Earth
and man, but the creation of the Garden of Eden.

Conclusion

In conclusion, to say that science has proven that the Earth was not created in 6 days seems like a very
bold statement considering that science should not be used to prove a mode of creation. Also, to say
that the 6 day creation account is not meant to be literal seems out of context.

I am no expert, neither in science or literature, but I believe I know enough about both as well as the
Bible to offer you my thoughts from a layman's perspective. I do believe scientific laws which are
within their realm and believe that they have their place in this world of ours. Science is not wrong or
evil if it is pursued within it's limits, and on this point I agree with Bill Allen. I do not agree with the
limits he places on religion and feel that these limits should actually be reversed, limiting science to the
theorizing and testing and proving of those theories, as science is defined.

I encourage you to search out the truths in the Bible to find that it does contain truth rather than a catch-
all of things that cannot be proven as the article mentioned would suggest. If the Bible is from God, the
creator of the universe, I don't think there is any area where science can trump the Bible or that the
Bible is limited to ideas or theories which cannot be inherently proven.

Thanks for reading.