MWD Science versus Religion

I am a firm believer that science is the best way of explaining the physical properties and physical laws of the universe. I also am a firm believer that God created our universe and established its physical properties and physical laws. And I see no conflict between the views of Science and Religion. Science is the explanation of how God created the universe, and God is the explanation of why we have the physical properties and physical laws of the universe. Science cannot prove, or disprove, the existence of God, as God is outside the realm of science. This article examines the issue of science versus religion based on my beliefs.

I should point out that I am NOT a scientist, historian, or theologian, nor have I received any education or training in science or engineering. This paper is the result of my readings on this subject in the past decades. Many academics, scientists, and engineers would critique what I have written here as not accurate nor through. I freely acknowledge that these critiques are correct. It was not my intentions to be accurate or through, as I am not qualified to give an accurate nor through description. My intention was to be understandable to a layperson so that they can grasp the concepts. Academics, scientists and engineers’ entire education and training is based on accuracy and thoroughness, and as such, they strive for this accuracy and thoroughness. When writing for the general public this accuracy and thoroughness can often lead to less understandability. I believe it is essential for all laypersons to grasp the concepts of within this paper, so they make more informed decisions on those areas of human endeavors that deal with this subject. As such, I did not strive for accuracy and thoroughness, only understandability.

The Nature of God

A brief discourse into the possible nature of God would be helpful at this point. The following are the four basic beliefs of God:

Atheism Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. The universe (or multi-verse) was created on its own and operates on the physical properties and physical laws at the time of the creation.

Deism A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation.

Immanentism A belief that the Deity created the universe and dwells in and operates directly within the universe or nature.

Interventionism A belief that the Deity created the universe and the Deity can and does act in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation.

Despite public perception to the contrary, not all scientists are atheist. There are many scientists that hold to the different nature of God in our universe, as described above.

There is much that scientists cannot explain, especially in regard to the human mind. The knowledge of good from evil, right from wrong, truth from falsehood, creative from destructive, reasonable from emotional, love from hate, wisdom from folly, and beauty from ugliness cannot be explained by science. These are questions of metaphysics, philosophy, theology, and morality and ethics which cannot be explained by science. I believe that since humans know of these things, it requires a belief in a God and a God who imparted to humans the knowledge of these things.

So where do I stand on this issue, and why do I believe what I believe. I would categorize myself as an Immanentist, who believes That God can and does act in human affairs but does so in a scientific manner.

I am also a believer in a monotheistic (believing that there is only one god), omnipotent (having unlimited power), and omniscient (infinitely wise) God. The basis of my belief is on the Judeo-Christian interpretation of God. I do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, as when God imparted his knowledge to mankind he could not have done so in a scientific manner. If he had done so in a scientific manner the people of that time would not have had a scientific basis to understand what he was imparting, and most likely they would have rejected his message. Instead, God imparted his knowledge in a poetic manner which was understandable to the people at that time. We also know due to modern biblical archeology that many of the stories in the Bible have a scientific basis.

Biblical Stories and Science

note - I have written a separate article on the miracles of Exodus "Looking for Miracles in all the Wrong Places" that provides more details on the Exodus miracles and their scientific explanations, as well as what is the true miracle of Exodus.

The Creation

An example of this is Genesis I, the creation of the universe. In Genesis I God gives an explanation of how he created the universe. If you believe in the literal truth of this then it cannot match up with the current scientific theory of the creation of the universe. However, it if you believe that it was a poetic description it can match up with current scientific theory. A small aside would be helpful in explaining why I believe this. It must be remembered that the words of God were originally oral history that then became written history, and rewritten history. If you remember a parlor game from the 1950s and 1960s of where you would line up everybody at the party and then write down a sentence on a piece of paper. You would hand this piece of paper to the first person in the line and then take it away from them and have been whisper to the next person what was written on the paper. The next person would then whisper it to the next person, who would whisper it to the next person, who would then whisper to the next person etc... At the end of the line you would have the last person to write down what he had heard and you would compare the original paper to the final paper, and everyone would get a good laugh on how much it had changed. This is because each person hears what the other person has said in a different manner because they bring their own knowledge and experience to what they heard, and spoke their interpretation of what they heard to the next person. As a result, the final written statement was considerably different than the original written statement. This is the nature of oral history. No matter how much the people speaking and hearing the oral history try to get it correct errors will creep in. This also happens in written history when you are transcribing from an original document to a copy. When transcribing a document human errors will occur, and the transcribed document is not an exact copy of the original document. If you are translating a document there are additional errors that are encountered. The Bible was originally written in ancient Hebrew, which was then translated into Aramaic, then Greek, then Latin, then medieval English, and finally modern English. Any time you translate something from one language to another you run the risk of mistranslating. In addition, words change their meaning throughout time. Sometimes words that mean one thing in the past do not have the same meaning in the present. This is especially true when you use words from medieval English to modern English, being that English is such a dynamic language. People are human and they make mistakes, and mistakes must be allowed for. No matter how divinely inspired they are to get it correct, they are human and imperfections and incorrectness will arise. What is important about Genesis I is that God stated that first he did one thing, then he did another thing, then he did another thing, and then another thing etc... This matches up very well with the modern scientific theory of evolution. First one thing happened, followed by another thing, followed by another, followed by another, etc... This is why I believe in the Judeo-Christian Bible. As far as I know the Judeo-Christian story of the creation is the only religious creationism story that matches up with modern science in one thing happening, followed by another thing, followed by another thing. It does not matter that the actual steps and what happened within the steps matchup between Genesis I and modern scientific creation theory, as we can attribute the mismatch to human error regarding oral and written history.

Garden of Eden

We also have good scientific speculation as to the Garden of Eden and the Great Flood. The Bible states that the Garden of Eden was at the juxtaposition of four rivers. Two rivers coming from the north, and one river from the East and another river from the West, which flowed into the sea. Modern satellite photography of the near East has shown that where the Tigris and Euphrates River came together there are two dried riverbeds nearby. One from the east and one from the West. If you had four rivers flowing together in that area, and with a temperate climate, the area would be lush with vegetation and animal life, subsisting off the vegetation and each other. This would have been truly a Garden of Eden for early man, as they had all the substance they required year-round. When the East and West rivers dried up it would have been less of a Garden of Eden, and some of the people would have had to migrate to other locations.

Great Flood

We can also explain the great flood as a result of the melting of the glaciers after the last Ice Age. Many rivers flowed to the sea, and where they entered the sea was a seawall that blocked the sea from flowing upriver. As the sea rose due to glacier melting the pressure built up on the seawall and eventually the seawall would collapse, and there would be a rush of seawater upriver which would be taken as a flood. Indeed we have stories from all over the world of great floods that could be explained by the collapse of seawalls due to glacier melting, that all would probably have happened within the same geological time scale as when the Glaciers melted.

Sodom and Gomorrah

We now have a scientific explanation for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. We know from recent archeology discoveries of Babylonian tables that a Babylonian Astrologer recorded a very bright star traveling across the sky at the time of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Given the positions of this very bright star as recorded on the tablet, and the positions of the fixed stars on the tablet, we can determine that a meteor passed overhead and we can plot its path. It is most likely that this meteor struck the Southern Alps at a low angle. The molten debris and ashes from this strike would have followed backward the path of this meteor. Given a certain mass of this meteor, the molten debris and ash would have settled over the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, choking or smothering the people of these cities, as well as burning down their structures. If God had spoken to Lot (see below) and warned him to escape with his family do a deep cave where the debris and ashes could not penetrate the Biblical story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah makes scientific sense.

Plagues of Egypt

The plagues of Egypt now have an excellent scientific explanation of how they occurred. The Plagues of Egypt happened at the same time as a massive volcano eruption. The volcano Santorini sent ash in to the air affecting the surrounding area. The ash is found in Cairo and the Nile River, proven by testing the composition of the ash. This volcanic eruption happened between 1500-1650BC while the Plagues happened between 1400-1550BC. So the timescale is correct. The 1st Plague. The Nile River ran red like blood. There is a common algae plume called the Red Tide. This makes the Nile River, or any water, look red like blood. So why did this happen? The ash from the volcano eruption changes the PH level of the river allowing the algae to bloom. The 2nd Plague. Frogs. The Red Tide algae is known for killing fish by reducing the oxygen levels in the water. Fish generally eat frog eggs, and with no fish you get a record number of frogs. The frogs can't live in polluted water and so leave the river for the nearby land where they die of starvation. The 3rd and 4th Plague. Lice and flies. The translation can actually be lice, fleas, gnats, or midges. But as you have river full of dead fish, and now dead frogs on land, this brings on the insects of the 3rd and 4th Plague. The 5th Plague. Pestilence. Flies, dead frogs, dead fish, and rodents eating all this and transmitting infected insects to nearby humans. Easy enough no? The 6th Plague. Boils. Certain types of flies that bite can leave behind boils. The bites get infected, they turn into boils. The 7th Plague. Fire and Hail. Ash in the air causes a mixture of ash and water. The ash, very high in the air, causes the water to freeze so when it falls it is hail and not rain. The fire? If there is dust in the air, or rain, smog, smoke etc, it can make lightning appear various colours. The effect is best at long distances. If lightning strikes an object like a tree, up close you may see a red/orange flash of flame etc. So the result is fire in the sky, and hail. The 8th Plague. Locusts. Locusts come about when the ground is very damp. They bury their eggs in the sand about 4-6 inches. After a record amount of hail the ground would be very wet allowing the locusts to form and come out. The 9th Plague. Darkness. After the Krakatoa eruption in 1815 there was darkness for 600 kilometers, and it was dark for several days. As the ash in the air from the Santorini eruption slowly drifted over Egypt it would have caused darkness. The 10th Plague. Death of Firstborn. In Egypt the firstborn was the most important family member. They would be the one to lead the family after the father died. When food was scarce the first born ate first and sometimes was the only one to eat. It was also true that the firstborn cattle and oxen were the first to eat. After the locusts ate everything there was only the grain locked in vaults. The hail made the grain wet, and locust feces brought bacterial infections. And so when only the first born at the top layers which had the infected grain, they were the only ones killed by the infected grain. As the Israelites ate leavened bread, that was baked at a higher temperature, the bacteria was killed and did not affect their first born.

Walls of Jericho

Even the fall of the Walls of Jericho may have a scientific explanation. During biblical times most of the walled cities were made of mud, not of stone as most people imagine (based on stonewalled cities of medieval times). We know scientifically as the mud dries over a long period of time it develops micro fissures within the mud. These micro fissures become fissures, and then cracks and the structural integrity of wall lessens throughout this process. The people of the time would have filled the cracks with more mud, and this may have sealed the cracks, but the structural integrity of the wall would have continued to weaken, and then have been severely weakened. If an earthquake struck nearby one of these structurally weaken walls it is quite possible the wall would collapse where the structural integrity was at it worse. This could explain the collapse of the Walls of Jericho. The Sun standing still in Joshua could also be explained by a long duration solar eclipse in which it may appear that the Sun was not coming out from behind the moon, and the people were concerned that it had stood still. This concern could have been intensified if a Prophet commanded the Sun to stand still, then commanded it to move before it started coming out of the shadow of the moon (this is purely speculative on my part). If both of these events (earthquake and solar eclipse) happened simultaneously, and God directed Joshua to be present at Jericho during this time (see “Scientific Manner”), the fall of the Walls of Jericho could have a scientific explanation.

Conclusion

I believe that as biblical archeology advances we will discover that more of the stories of the bible have a basis in fact. I also believe that we may eventually have a scientific explanation for these miracles in the Bible, but we may never know the scientific explanations as it may not be possible to know the scientific conditions surrounding these miracles. Just because science can explain how some of these miracles occurred does not make them any less miraculous. The true miracle is that God initiated the natural causes, at the right time and place, that started the miracle. As the people of the time had no scientific basis for explaining what had happened they, therefore, explained it in a way that they could understand as miracles from God Therefore, most miracles of the Bible were explained by acts of God with a moral narrative, rather than scientific explanations for which the people of that time were incapable of explicating.

Scientific Thoughts on the Origin of the Universe

The Multiverse (or meta-universe) is a hypothetical group of multiple separate universes including the universe in which humans live in. Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, the physical laws and the constants that describe them. The different universes within the multiverse are called the "parallel universes", "other universes" or "alternative universes"

The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it, and the relationships among these universes vary from one multiverse hypothesis to another.

Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology, and literature, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternate universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "parallel realities", "quantum realities", "alternate realities", "alternate timelines", "alternate dimensions", and "dimensional planes". The scientific community continues to debate the multiverse hypotheses. Prominent physicists are divided in opinion about whether any other universes exist.

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.

There have also been other scientific postulations as to the origin of the Universe such as:

Brane cosmology refers to several theories in particle physics and cosmology related to string theory, superstring theory and M-theory. This cosmology postulates that for an eternity, our universe lay dormant—a frozen, featureless netherworld. Then, about 15 billion years ago, the cosmos got an abrupt wake-up call. A parallel universe moving along a hidden dimension smacked into ours. The collision heated our universe, creating a sea of quarks, electrons, protons, photons, and other subatomic particles. It also imparted microscopic ripples, like ocean waves crashing on a shore. These ripples generated tiny fluctuations in temperature and density, the seeds from which all cosmic architecture—from stars to gargantuan clusters of galaxies to galactic super clusters—ultimately arose.

The Many-Worlds interpretation (MWI) is a philosophical position about how the mathematics used in quantum mechanics relates to physical reality. It asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wave function collapse. This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe. In contrast to some other interpretations, the evolution of reality as a whole in MWI is rigidly deterministic and local.

Some scientists believe that the postulates are the explanation for the Universe, while other scientists believe that since there is no observations or experiments to demonstrate the existence of the Multiverse it is not scientific. I am in the latter belief. Until science has observations or experiments that demonstrate the reality of the postulates it is just a belief. As a belief, you are free to accept or reject these postulates. I personally reject these postulates, as I believe in God for the reasons previously stated.

Scientific Thoughts on the Origin of Intelligent Life

It was also discovered that the fundamental properties and constants of the Universe, as I have written in my article “The Fundamental Properties and Constants of the Universe”, are fine-tuned for the existence of life in our Universe. The Fundamental Properties of the Universe are Relativity (both General and Special Relativity), Quantum Mechanics (including the Laws of Thermodynamics and Entropy), DNA and Molecular Biology, and Evolution (the evolution of the universe as well as the evolution of biology). If any of these constants and properties are changed, then life could not have arisen in our Universe. The question is, then, why this fine-tuning occurred in our Universe?

The Anthropic principle, also known as the “observation selection effect”, is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations could happen only in a universe capable of developing intelligent life. There are many different formulations of the Anthropic principle. Philosopher Nick Bostrom counts them at thirty, but the underlying principles can be divided into “weak” and “strong” forms, depending on the types of cosmological claims they entail. The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), as defined by Brandon Carter, states that the universe’s ostensible fine-tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivorship bias) and that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers.”. Note that for Carter, “location” refers to our location in time as well as space. Most such arguments draw upon some notion of the Multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes from which to select. However, a single vast universe is sufficient for most forms of the WAP that do not specifically deal with fine-tuning. Carter distinguished the WAP from the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), which considers the universe in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it, and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.

There are many scientific and philosophical objections to the Anthropic principle. The philosophers of cosmology John Earman, Ernan McMullin, and Jesús Mosterín contend that “in its weak version, the anthropic principle is a mere tautology, which does not allow us to explain anything or to predict anything that we did not already know. In its strong version, it is a gratuitous speculation”.

God and Science

I believe in science to answer scientific questions, And I believe in God to answer the questions that science cannot answer. There are questions that can be asked that science is incapable of answering. Those questions are best left to philosophers, ethicists and moralists, and theologians. Scientists are free to believe or not believe in God, as are all peoples, but scientists cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. To utilize science to answer the question of God is the misuse of science. All parties should recognize that the question of God is indeterminable and resides in the realm of belief. No party has a definitive answer to the question of God. Let us debate the question of Go in an intelligent and respectful manner, and if we cannot agree simply agree to disagree, but each party should not claim the truth of their beliefs as the truth may never be known.

In a Scientific Manner

I also believe that God spoke to the Prophets as described in the Bible. Not as we know as speech, but in a Godly way. We now know through modern science that human senses are the stimulation of the nervous system and the interpretation of this stimulation by the brain. I do not believe that God appeared and spoke to the Prophets in a physical sense. But God instead stimulated, in a Quantum manner, the nervous system and the brain so that it appeared to the Prophets as if God were physically present. God was then able to communicate the knowledge and wisdom of the Bible to the Prophets so that mankind could learn what God expected of them in living a moral and ethical life. God also used this form of communication to direct some of the Prophets in a course of action to be taken by the Prophet. In this way, God influenced the development of a civilized society.

An example of this is the Ten Commandments. If you wish to live an ethical and moral life the best way you can do this is by following the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments, as given to Moses by God, is the best way to live an ethical and moral life. It is somewhat amazing that a human would have the knowledge and wisdom to could come up with such a succinct and comprehensive guide to living a moral and ethical life. I, therefore, suspect that the Ten Commandments were the words of God spoken to Moses.

As for God intervening and changing the physical properties and physical laws of the universe, I do not believe that God does so. I concede that God may have this capability by intervening on the Quantum level to produce the desired outcome in a physical state. An example may be changing the conditions that would produce a storm or start the process that leads to an earthquake. So, how could this work? In Quantum Mechanics we know that scientists cannot predict the exact outcome of a Quantum process but only the possible outcomes of the Quantum process (known as problemistic outcomes rather than deterministic outcomes). Perhaps God chooses one or more of those problemistic outcomes that will lead to the desired physical results. In this manner, God is altering the outcome of a Quantum process(s) to be deterministic rather than problemistic. However, I am dubious that this happens, but I am willing to concede that it may be possible.

My Beliefs

I believe that God knows all there was, and all that is, but I do not believe that God knows all that will be. God knows physical properties and physical laws of the universe, so God knows what will happen as a result of these physical properties and physical laws of the universe. But God does not know what humans will do. This belief is a result of my belief that God gave humans "Free Will" for individuals to take any action they so desire. As individuals have the free will to take any action, God cannot know what action they will take. God only observes their words, deeds, and thoughts, and renders a judgment of them after their body passes away and their spirit joins with God (see number 8 through 11 above).

So how should humans best live their life? The best moral and ethical code is that of the Ten Commandments and Judeo-Christian values, and you should try to live your life by them (as outlined in the "Forward" to my observations). And how should we interact with others that do not share our beliefs? The best answer I have discovered is in a letter that Benjamin Franklin wrote at the end of his life to his friend Ezra Stiles. I would suggest that you carefully read this letter and try to keep to its principles.

So, as I leave the topic of Science vs. Religion I grasp my Bible, and my Science books together, and leave you with the words of one of the greatest scientists in history, and one of the greatest science popularizers of the last half of the 20th century.

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
- Carl Sagan

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

Franklin's Letter to Ezra Stiles

A letter that Benjamin Franklin wrote on March 09, 1790 to Ezra Stiles, an American educator, academic, Congregationalist minister, theologian, and author, who is also noted as the seventh president of Yale College (1778–1795) and one of the founders of Brown University, explains Franklin's religious beliefs. Dr. Franklin's religious beliefs are a cornerstone to my religious beliefs, and a good study in tolerance for others religious beliefs.

I received your kind Letter of Jany 28, and am glad you have at length received the Portraits of Govr Yale from his Family, and deposited it in the College Library. He was a great and good Man, and has the Merit of doing infinite Service to your Country by his Munificence to that Institution. The Honour you propose doing me by placing in the same Room with his, is much too great for my Deserts; but you always had a Partiality for me, and to that it must be ascribed. I am however too much obliged to Yale College, the first learned Society that took Notice of me, and adorned me with its Honours, to refuse a Request that comes from it thro' so esteemed a Friend. But I do not think any one of the Portraits you mention as in my Possession worthy of the Place and Company you propose to place it in. You have an excellent Artist lately arrived. If he will undertake to make one for you, I shall chearfully pay the Expence: But he must not long delay setting about it, or I may slip thro' his Fingers, for I am now in my 85th Year's and very infirm.

Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. I think the System of Morals [devised by Jesus] and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity.

I send with this a very learned Work, (as it seems to me) on the antient Samaritan Coins, lately printed in Spain, and at least curious for the Beauty of the Impression. Please to accept it for your College Library. I have subscribed for the Encyclopedia now printing here, with the Intention of presenting it to the College; I shall probably depart before the Work is finished, but shall leave Directions for its Continuance to the End. With this you will receive some of the first Numbers.

You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it: But I do not take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm however in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Believers, in his Government of the World, with any particular Marks of his Displeasure. I shall only add respecting myself, that having experienced the Goodness of that Being, in conducting me prosperously thro' a long Life, I have no doubt of its Continuance in the next, tho' without the smallest Conceit of meriting such Goodness. My Sentiments in this Head you will see in the Copy of an old Letter enclosed, which I wrote in answer to one from a zealous Religionist whom I had relieved in a paralitic Case by Electricity, and who being afraid I should grow proud upon it, sent me his serious, tho' rather impertinent, Cautions. I send you also the Copy of another Letter, which will shew something of my Disposition relating to Religion. With great and sincere Esteem and Affection, I am, Dear Sir, Your obliged old Friend and most obedient humble Servant

The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).

Science versus Religion

An Examination of the Conflicts Between Science and Religion

Introduction

The Nature of God

Biblical Stories and Science

The Creation

Garden of Eden

Great Flood

Sodom and Gomorrah

Plagues of Egypt

Walls of Jericho

Conclusion

Scientific Thoughts on the Origin of the Universe

Scientific Thoughts on the Origin of Intelligent Life

God and Science

In a Scientific Manner

My Beliefs

Franklin's Letter to Ezra Stiles

Further Readings

Disclaimer

The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings, and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).

Science versus Religion

An Examination of the Conflicts Between Science and Religion

Introduction

The Nature of God

Biblical Stories and Science

The Creation

Garden of Eden

Great Flood

Sodom and Gomorrah

Plagues of Egypt

Walls of Jericho

Conclusion

Scientific Thoughts on the Origin of the Universe

Scientific Thoughts on the Origin of Intelligent Life

God and Science

In a Scientific Manner

My Beliefs

Franklin's Letter to Ezra Stiles

Further Readings

Disclaimer

Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).