There is a course on Jordan’s Peterson academy on the philosophy of science. In it it describes science as pertaining to our universe only and refers to the 4 laws of nature and matter and energy of the universe (obviously a very brief description) So existence and science were created by God and there can be no conflict between either science and religion.
As far as Galileo is concerned, the so called Galileo controversy was political and had little to do with religion or science. It tool place in the middle of the 30 Years war which had Catholics on both sides. Galileo portrayed the Pope as a fool in his treatise. Pope Urban had ties to France who was on one side and the Hapsburgs were on the other side.
And of course just as heroin addicts do not disprove the efficacy of medication in general, or depictions of sadistic violence disprove the value of visual art; that some people take evil actions in the name of good does not show the non-existence of good. Indeed, some Christians take those three examples (Hypatia was new to me, but it fits the pattern) to argue that these things reflect badly on government and its coercive powers, whatever the ideology that is used as an excuse.
Interesting. On a slightly different but similar vein: the existence of life. How and why does life come to be? It seems to me that the existence of life is weird. It is a localized phenomenon that resists entropy. I’m not sure that an atheist science can explain how life exists.
What I appreciate most about this piece is how it dismantles the myths without slipping into defensiveness or triumphalism. The caricatures — “science has disproved God” and “the Church persecuted scientists” — survive only because people repeat them without ever checking the historical or philosophical foundations. Sarah’s treatment shows what happens when you actually look under the hood: the myths collapse under the weight of their own oversimplification.
Her first point is the one Christians need to articulate more often: science is powerful, but its power is descriptive, not ultimate. It can map the universe after it exists, but it cannot reach beyond the boundary of creation. Hawking’s “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” isn’t just philosophically thin — it’s category confusion. Laws describe; they do not cause. And once you acknowledge a beginning, you must at least allow the possibility of a Beginner.
The historical section is equally important because it exposes how selective storytelling becomes propaganda. Bruno wasn’t a martyr for science; he was a priest teaching doctrines wildly outside the Christian faith. Hypatia’s death was political violence in a volatile city, not a theological execution. And Galileo’s conflict wasn’t Christianity vs. science — it was a debate over evidence, interpretation, and timing. Bellarmine’s caution reads almost modern: show me the proof, and I’ll reconsider the interpretation. That’s not hostility; that’s responsible epistemology.
What this article ultimately demonstrates is that Christianity and science are not natural enemies. The real conflict is between truth and the myths people cling to when truth becomes inconvenient. And the antidote to myth is simple: investigate. Look at the evidence. Read the history. Follow the logic. When you do, the supposed war between faith and science turns out to be more smoke than substance.
For believers engaging skeptics, this piece is a reminder that we don’t need to fear the conversation. We just need to insist on honesty — about what science can do, what it cannot do, and what history actually records.
Another log on the fire that religion and science are in harmony.
Where did science come from? Answer: the university system. Where did the university come from? Answer: the Church teaching system. What was the first thing the Church teaching system taught? Answer: religion.
The so called dark ages produced the university system - starting with Bologna in 1088.
What helped lead to this learning system? The trivium and quadrivium forwarded by Boethius just after Fall of Rome. In fact, Boethius was executed by a Roman emperor.
I think the stories are more powerful than the science 🧪.
There is a way people are taught, and I think it has more to do with art and film 🎥 and scientific popularizing books 📚.
My personal peeves are Columbus discovered the globe, and the fable of the scopes monkey 🐵 🐒 trial.
If you compare the characters and facts in the film and stage play “Inherit the Wind,” and the actual history(Summer for the Gods, 📕, Pulitzer Prize in history 1998). You get roughly a 25% match in data between the play/movie and the history book 📕. But the movie 🎥 is what people remember about the modernist/fundamentalist split.
There is NO writing from the High Middle Ages (only witnesses we can possibly Have), demonstrating any belief in a flat earth. But as the pictures attached from an insurance commercial show…Columbus “discovered” the 🌎 globe.
It’s still taught in the popularizer book “The discoverers” 📕 , even though philosophers of science (science historians) have long discredited Midievals believed in a flat earth. See C.S. Lewis last book, “The discarded image” 📕 , or “Inventing the Flat earth:Columbus and modern Historians.” By Jeffrey Burton Russel.
Dayton
The Scopes 🐒 🐵 trial at the fulcrum of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy in American history.
The Scopes Story that exists in the minds of Americans is driven by "Inherent the Wind" Movie/Play. A better source is the book: "Summer for the Gods", 1998 Pulitzer prize in History. Documents the movies statements are 75% false.
These things are taught in science popularizer books, and our opponents refuse to have them removed or at least taught with significant Caveats. It infects the imaginations of children.
Then when the young people hear us they remember the stories. What they hear is the song 🎶.
It seems all the laws of "physics"* that created our "universe" accompanied the "Big Bang" as it evolved in its orderly, purposeful fashion (SLOWLY from our vantage point, QUICKLY from another). Seems as though there was a lot of THOUGHT involved before that event happened--don't you THINK?
*Use of "quotes" refers to a famous quote from the movie THE PRINCESS BRIDE. Any guesses?
Yes, it does seem as though a lot of thought preceded that event.
As for the Princess Bride reference, hmm... I'm not sure, but one quote comes to mind. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I've found it useful--often. Even with the things I post, which is why you see so many quoted words in my responses/comments. A better quote would be: "I don't think we know as much as we think we do."
Right from the top I am going to admit that I was drawn to your article by a frustrated Captain Picard! I've been a trekkie since the first episode aired! That being said:
I really enjoyed both your article and your FAQ. As I was reading the FAQ, I kept wondering, "Now why didn't I say that?"
Adjacent to your discussion of "Who created God?" I am totally amused at the physicists who are now claiming that if quarks behave in a certain way, they could have created the universe from nothing. They don't bother to explain who created quarks and who created energy.
Thanks for two very interesting articles. Time well spent!
I would add that Galileo was not fighting the church he was actually motivated by concern for the church teaching something that was not biblical. In his heart he wanted to correct the churche’s wrong teaching
Galileo did his best to destroy the reputation of Kepler because Kepler believed crazy things like the planets moving in elliptical orbits instead of perfect circles and that the moon caused the ocean tides.
Great article Prof. Also, merging science with Christianity, I believe I have determined the image of Jesus on the shroud it’s EM zero point radiation with a 200 nm wavelength.
Accurate terms and correct interpretation have always been the friend of true Christianity…AND science.
Thinking the world was flat and center of the universe, was very unfriendly to reality and science. The suffering of those disciplines, at the hands of ignorance, seemed to be never ending. But thanks be it did end!
Now, what wrong thinkings are being challenged today, both scientifically and theologically.
Though a classic Bible thumper, I recognise the fossil and geological record. I can see that authentic interpretation of these records of time and space don’t frighten He who is perfect and not bound by said.
There is a course on Jordan’s Peterson academy on the philosophy of science. In it it describes science as pertaining to our universe only and refers to the 4 laws of nature and matter and energy of the universe (obviously a very brief description) So existence and science were created by God and there can be no conflict between either science and religion.
This is described in my https://jrcsmc.substack.com/p/science article on what science is.
As far as Galileo is concerned, the so called Galileo controversy was political and had little to do with religion or science. It tool place in the middle of the 30 Years war which had Catholics on both sides. Galileo portrayed the Pope as a fool in his treatise. Pope Urban had ties to France who was on one side and the Hapsburgs were on the other side.
And of course just as heroin addicts do not disprove the efficacy of medication in general, or depictions of sadistic violence disprove the value of visual art; that some people take evil actions in the name of good does not show the non-existence of good. Indeed, some Christians take those three examples (Hypatia was new to me, but it fits the pattern) to argue that these things reflect badly on government and its coercive powers, whatever the ideology that is used as an excuse.
Another great article. This subject so critical to the salvation of millions of smart unsaved people
Interesting. On a slightly different but similar vein: the existence of life. How and why does life come to be? It seems to me that the existence of life is weird. It is a localized phenomenon that resists entropy. I’m not sure that an atheist science can explain how life exists.
The existence of life is indeed pretty weird.
What I appreciate most about this piece is how it dismantles the myths without slipping into defensiveness or triumphalism. The caricatures — “science has disproved God” and “the Church persecuted scientists” — survive only because people repeat them without ever checking the historical or philosophical foundations. Sarah’s treatment shows what happens when you actually look under the hood: the myths collapse under the weight of their own oversimplification.
Her first point is the one Christians need to articulate more often: science is powerful, but its power is descriptive, not ultimate. It can map the universe after it exists, but it cannot reach beyond the boundary of creation. Hawking’s “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” isn’t just philosophically thin — it’s category confusion. Laws describe; they do not cause. And once you acknowledge a beginning, you must at least allow the possibility of a Beginner.
The historical section is equally important because it exposes how selective storytelling becomes propaganda. Bruno wasn’t a martyr for science; he was a priest teaching doctrines wildly outside the Christian faith. Hypatia’s death was political violence in a volatile city, not a theological execution. And Galileo’s conflict wasn’t Christianity vs. science — it was a debate over evidence, interpretation, and timing. Bellarmine’s caution reads almost modern: show me the proof, and I’ll reconsider the interpretation. That’s not hostility; that’s responsible epistemology.
What this article ultimately demonstrates is that Christianity and science are not natural enemies. The real conflict is between truth and the myths people cling to when truth becomes inconvenient. And the antidote to myth is simple: investigate. Look at the evidence. Read the history. Follow the logic. When you do, the supposed war between faith and science turns out to be more smoke than substance.
For believers engaging skeptics, this piece is a reminder that we don’t need to fear the conversation. We just need to insist on honesty — about what science can do, what it cannot do, and what history actually records.
Another log on the fire that religion and science are in harmony.
Where did science come from? Answer: the university system. Where did the university come from? Answer: the Church teaching system. What was the first thing the Church teaching system taught? Answer: religion.
The so called dark ages produced the university system - starting with Bologna in 1088.
What helped lead to this learning system? The trivium and quadrivium forwarded by Boethius just after Fall of Rome. In fact, Boethius was executed by a Roman emperor.
Excellent.
I think the stories are more powerful than the science 🧪.
There is a way people are taught, and I think it has more to do with art and film 🎥 and scientific popularizing books 📚.
My personal peeves are Columbus discovered the globe, and the fable of the scopes monkey 🐵 🐒 trial.
If you compare the characters and facts in the film and stage play “Inherit the Wind,” and the actual history(Summer for the Gods, 📕, Pulitzer Prize in history 1998). You get roughly a 25% match in data between the play/movie and the history book 📕. But the movie 🎥 is what people remember about the modernist/fundamentalist split.
There is NO writing from the High Middle Ages (only witnesses we can possibly Have), demonstrating any belief in a flat earth. But as the pictures attached from an insurance commercial show…Columbus “discovered” the 🌎 globe.
It’s still taught in the popularizer book “The discoverers” 📕 , even though philosophers of science (science historians) have long discredited Midievals believed in a flat earth. See C.S. Lewis last book, “The discarded image” 📕 , or “Inventing the Flat earth:Columbus and modern Historians.” By Jeffrey Burton Russel.
Dayton
The Scopes 🐒 🐵 trial at the fulcrum of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy in American history.
The Scopes Story that exists in the minds of Americans is driven by "Inherent the Wind" Movie/Play. A better source is the book: "Summer for the Gods", 1998 Pulitzer prize in History. Documents the movies statements are 75% false.
These things are taught in science popularizer books, and our opponents refuse to have them removed or at least taught with significant Caveats. It infects the imaginations of children.
Then when the young people hear us they remember the stories. What they hear is the song 🎶.
It seems all the laws of "physics"* that created our "universe" accompanied the "Big Bang" as it evolved in its orderly, purposeful fashion (SLOWLY from our vantage point, QUICKLY from another). Seems as though there was a lot of THOUGHT involved before that event happened--don't you THINK?
*Use of "quotes" refers to a famous quote from the movie THE PRINCESS BRIDE. Any guesses?
Yes, it does seem as though a lot of thought preceded that event.
As for the Princess Bride reference, hmm... I'm not sure, but one quote comes to mind. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Can't fool you. Will keep trying. ;-)
Such a great quote.
I've found it useful--often. Even with the things I post, which is why you see so many quoted words in my responses/comments. A better quote would be: "I don't think we know as much as we think we do."
Right from the top I am going to admit that I was drawn to your article by a frustrated Captain Picard! I've been a trekkie since the first episode aired! That being said:
I really enjoyed both your article and your FAQ. As I was reading the FAQ, I kept wondering, "Now why didn't I say that?"
Adjacent to your discussion of "Who created God?" I am totally amused at the physicists who are now claiming that if quarks behave in a certain way, they could have created the universe from nothing. They don't bother to explain who created quarks and who created energy.
Thanks for two very interesting articles. Time well spent!
Live long and prosper, Rick!
Absolutely! I even wrote a book and article on this as it's a very important topic.
I would add that Galileo was not fighting the church he was actually motivated by concern for the church teaching something that was not biblical. In his heart he wanted to correct the churche’s wrong teaching
I'd not heard that perspective before.
My take on Galileo:
https://thomasfdavis.substack.com/p/the-galileo-affair?r=bbwgp&utm_medium=ios
Galileo did his best to destroy the reputation of Kepler because Kepler believed crazy things like the planets moving in elliptical orbits instead of perfect circles and that the moon caused the ocean tides.
Love your site name, by the way.
Great article Prof. Also, merging science with Christianity, I believe I have determined the image of Jesus on the shroud it’s EM zero point radiation with a 200 nm wavelength.
Myth #1: Science has disproved God
3. Science is atheistic in a methodical sense, but this in no way disproves God. This is perhaps the greatest hurdle to be overcome.
https://thomasfdavis.substack.com/p/demarcations?r=bbwgp&utm_medium=ios
I like to think about-
Accurate terms and correct interpretation have always been the friend of true Christianity…AND science.
Thinking the world was flat and center of the universe, was very unfriendly to reality and science. The suffering of those disciplines, at the hands of ignorance, seemed to be never ending. But thanks be it did end!
Now, what wrong thinkings are being challenged today, both scientifically and theologically.
Though a classic Bible thumper, I recognise the fossil and geological record. I can see that authentic interpretation of these records of time and space don’t frighten He who is perfect and not bound by said.
"Accurate terms and correct interpretation have always been the friend of true Christian…AND science." Agreed.