As we become more knowledgeable of the universe, it would be expected that we would get closer to understanding and confirming that a divine creator was behind all that we know to exist. We have always trusted those in the field of science to be objective in informing us of new discoveries of truth and facts.
Yet I see articles in respected scientific journals attacking Christians and others of faith. It seems scientists are abandoning their usual objectiveness and have actually begun to attack anyone who doesn't see things their way.
This bias continues as students in universities are being bombarded with propaganda in the classrooms about "superstition" and "impossible miracles" contained in the Bible, in spite of the mounting historical evidence for the truth in the Bible.
The problem I have with professors who heave such venom is, they never take the time to define what they mean by "superstition", or “supernatural”.
"Superstition" or "Supernatural" usually apply to an event that is considered impossible under "natural" conditions. But lately, in quantum physics, scientists have been admitting that "anything" is possible, under the right physical conditions. So where does the "impossible” come in?
I'm not saying that people of faith can, or should, explain miracles in physical terms, but we do understand, probably better than most scientists, that our knowledge is still very limited concerning the universe. It is foolish to say something is "impossible" while we still don't understand WHY it is impossible.
I used to think that being a scientist was about being objective. There was a time when that was true . That objectivity in a large part, is lost on today’s science community, and is replaced with “political correctness”. Today, many people have begun to distrust science because of that attitude.
Global warming may be a real phenomenon, but it seems that most of the science community is more concerned with "propaganda" and perception than solving its mysteries. Yes, I said mysteries.
We still aren’t certain whether the climatic changes we have seen in the last 100 years are due to man or natural cycles, or both. There were similar natural cycles during a geologic period called the Younger Dryas period 13,000 years ago, the drastic warming period 1000 years ago near the end of the "Dark Ages", and the "little ice age" from the mid 1500's to the mid 1800's. Did man cause those?
The degree to which supposedly credible scientists will go to promote an "agenda", and to politicize it, was revealed in the "stolen" emails which made the news lately. They clearly wanted to misinform the public and to hide any data that didn't promote or support "man-made global warming".
Will science ever prove or admit the existence of God? I once believed it would. I have come to believe that to do so would go against the very nature of many scientists today. It is possible to "interpret" any new scientific discovery as "proof" of the non-existence of God, if that is your agenda. You simply hide or "reinterpret" all evidence that suggests otherwise. History has proven that a scientist with an “agenda” is not really a scientist.
If God or Jesus were to come down and land on the White House lawn, I believe most scientists would embrace a new theory that the earth's crust was emitting ethylene gas that is causing mass hallucinations.
Which is the greater sin, to accept on faith those things we don't understand, and admit that we may never completely understand God's work, or to be so biased against those of faith that no amount of "proof" would ever be sufficient to change their minds?
I don’t expect scientists to be religious, only to be truthful.
“No one is as blind as he who will not see”.