A fair question, and I would be a terrible host if I didn’t address this after making grand promises.
Bottom line, I rather lost interest. No, I haven’t rejected Christianity and I haven’t rejected my passing interest in science. However, the urgency with which I approached this project has faded. I may return to it, I may not. I don’t want to make promises at this point that I may not keep.
But fear not, I do have something for you.
After reading through the comments/debate following the initial post on the subject, I admit to being more cautious on the topic, especially when I realized that I didn’t have a necessary vocabulary. I needed to find a better phrase than “atheistic science”. In truth, science in itself is neutral. It is a method by which someone observes and experiments. Thus, essentially neutral. But I did find the word I was looking for: naturalism.
It seems that the core of this debate is one of worldview. In fact, many Intelligent Design proponents would agree with me on this point. It is not a scientific debate, it is a worldview debate. Naturalism vs. whatever you would call those who acknowledge a creative force. Naturalism, at its core, sees the universe as a closed-system. The laws of nature are self-sustaining and there is no outside, supernatural influence. The naturalist endeavors to explain nature without resorting to the supernatural. They feel this way for a variety of reasons. However, many have the belief that “no God” simplifies the conclusion. And let’s face it, God is a large, complicated variable. His influence is near impossible to scientifically account for. And with a scientific method that endeavors to eliminate as many variables as possible, you can see the appeal of eliminating this variable as an option. It frees one up a bit.
Somewhere along the line, naturalism stopped being an approach and became a philosophy in its own right. It became a lens through which all of life was analyzed, not just science. And the assertion of ID/Creation Science proponents is that the naturalistic worldview influences the analysis of data and the conclusions reached. Incidentally, this is a similar accusation naturalists would level at ID/Creation Scientists, that they allow their “God Designed It” worldview to influence their analysis and conclusions.
Science should work toward the truth, whether God exists or not. I would like to think that on the whole it does. We have some amazing technology thanks to scientific investigation and discoveries, and we know a lot about our world and galaxy. If science points toward design, that’s fine. If science points that there is no design and that God might not exist, well I admit that throws my particular worldview into question, but I want to trust that scientists, regardless of their personal worldview, are following the evidence with as little bias as possible.
But humans are human. I believe there are those on both side of this debate can be less than honest about their particular conclusions and how they reached them.
As I stated in the beginning, my area of interest is primarily philosophy and art. I don’t tend to think like a scientist. But this debate has become such a great thorn in our society and I felt I needed to come up with a personal understanding of what I believe. Essentially, I have, but I admit that I am leaving room to maneuver. I retain my faith, but I am not rigidly interpreting things so that scientific theories will destroy that faith. Many other believers in Christ have done their own reconciliation between faith and scientific theory. Others have rejected their faith. I’ll continue to watch* and read and hopefully follow the evidence in my own way.
*This article on epigenetics in particular was fascinating. I do believe that aspects of evolution are true, even if I don’t agree with all the conclusions.