ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Christianity, the Bible & Jesus

Whose Science is More Religious?

Updated on May 31, 2011

Creation science is often considered a religion rather than science. But what about mainstream science? Is it really that religion-free?

The only mostly religious-free documentary on science I watched, was a documentary on the String Theory by Nova. In the 190-minute program, they only had a couple of minutes of evolution. Much appreciated NOVA! That's a lot of progress.

But most of the time, whenever there's anything science-related, they make sure to infiltrate a bunch of stuff on evolution into the fabric. There's a program done by BBC called, "Walking with dinosaurs". I really enjoyed watching it, actually; because I like science fiction. The people doing the show have a great imagination. The way they invented the looks of all those sea monsters, the seas they lived in, and even what to use to bait them... is pretty impressive. I especially liked the part, when the guy comes up to a shore of a lake, and says, "I can just imagine Argentinasauruses coming to this shore for a drink of water millions of years ago." What? Millions of years ago, that lake is not even supposed to be there according to the constantly changing planet landscape of the evolutionary theory. So, I mean, it's a fun show to watch, but that's not science, that's science fiction with some good imagination and computer graphics.

I like doing research on the different objects in space. So, I often visit NASA's website to explore. But what I noticed, is that almost every article they write just has to have a bunch of stuff on evolution. They just can't stay away from it. It starts with kindergarten, and continues to the highest scientific institutions. The religious presupposition that there is no God, is everywhere around us. It seems like they're trying to get a point across. To me, that sounds as much religion as you see in articles by creationists.

What is science? Well, technically it's something we can see, smell, touch, hear, etc. But what does evolution have to do with science? Did anybody see anything evolve? Any science starts with a presupposition. That's just how the famous scientific method works. First you make an assumption, then you go collect data and do tests to see if your assumption is right. The current mainstream science makes an assumption, before they investigate anything. That assumption is.. there is no God. They would mock creationists for making an assumption that there is a God in every article, while doing essentially the same type of thing themselves. The whole argument that creation science is a religion, while mainstream science is not, is bogus.

Science has being hi-jacked by people who don't simply do science. Those people have a religious agenda behind their back. The agenda is to use science to destroy faith. As one guy who the creators of "Expelled" film interviewed, said, you don't want to take away people's religion, it makes them comfortable. If you take away their religion quickly, they will complain. You want to gradually develop popular science that would make people believe they no longer need religion. That is how you create a religious-free society.

So if you want to label something as science, give me the hard facts. If you're a Christian, and was convinced that science and religion don't mix, stop allowing people to indoctrinate you. You can't live Christianity on logic alone, because it takes a lot of faith. Life can't be lived on logic alone, you have to trust someone, somewhere, all the time. And everybody does science based on their religious beliefs. Science and religion are separate areas of our lives which always coexist in different ways, depending on the religious beliefs of people doing science.

Trying to set an example, by giving just the hard facts at, but it's hard, after reading through all of NASA's religious pitch.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • emichael profile image

      emichael 6 years ago from New Orleans

      "It starts with kindergarten, and continues to the highest scientific institutions. The religious presupposition that there is no God, is everywhere around us. It seems like they're trying to get a point across. To me, that sounds as much religion as you see in articles by creationists."

      Be careful how you are defining religion here. Whether you're talking about a claim for or against the existence of God, there is not necessarily religion inherent in those claims. I could believe in God and follow no moral code or submit to any particular religious dogma. We may take those beliefs and THEN submit to religious beliefs, but not necessarily. Let me know if I've misunderstood your argument.

      "Those people have a religious agenda behind their back."

      Yes, while they may have a religious (anti-religious) agenda, it seems a bit much to turn that agenda into a religion of it's own.

      I appreciate your argument that belief in evolution requires a great deal of presupposition and faith, the same as a belief in creation.

      Interestingly, I just finished reading another hub on this subject from the perspective of an atheist. Though, as a Christian, I obviously differ with him on some fundamental things, he makes a few good points on some misconceptions Christians often have about atheism and the theory of evolution.

      Realize, I'm not saying you have these misconceptions, I just thought you'd be interested to read on this subject from the perspective of someone with the opposite view.

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Sorry to play devil's advocate ;)

    • Porshadoxus profile image

      Porshadoxus 6 years ago from the straight and narrow way

      Well spoken. I am a young-earth creationist and agree with you 100%.

      I would add to your piece that science requires laboratory experiments with repeatable results. Evolution cannot possibly be repeated in a lab of any sort. Evolution cannot possibly be scientific. It is, as you say, just a theory.