Religion and Science

[vossler]

There are many here who would advocate keeping religion out of science. Here's a great example of science and religion coming together beautifully and in a very meaningful way.

Here is an excerpt of an article entitled “Honoring a Godly Hero” by Dave Meyer.

"In 1921, George Washington Carver accepted an invitation to address the United States Senate Ways and Means Committee in Washington, D.C., regarding the potential uses of the peanut... At first he was only given 10 minutes to speak, but once the committee became captivated by his words and delivery, the chairman granted Dr. Carver unlimited time. At the end of his address, which ran an hour and forty-five minutes, the Committee chairman asked Dr. Carver how he had learned all the things he had spoken about. Dr Carver answered:

"From an old book."
"What book?" asked the Senator.
Carver replied, "The Bible."
The Senator inquired, "Does the Bible tell all about peanuts?"
"No, Sir" Dr. Carver replied, "But it tells about the God who made the peanut. I asked Him to show me what to do with the peanut, and He did.""

If that doesn't dramatically show everyone how bringing our faith into the study of science is not only good, but very good, then I don't know what would.

 

[The Lady Kate]

There are many here who would advocate keeping religion out of science. Here's a great example of science and religion coming together beautifully and in a very meaningful way.

Here is an excerpt of an article entitled “Honoring a Godly Hero” by Dave Meyer.

"In 1921, George Washington Carver accepted an invitation to address the United States Senate Ways and Means Committee in Washington, D.C., regarding the potential uses of the peanut... At first he was only given 10 minutes to speak, but once the committee became captivated by his words and delivery, the chairman granted Dr. Carver unlimited time. At the end of his address, which ran an hour and forty-five minutes, the Committee chairman asked Dr. Carver how he had learned all the things he had spoken about. Dr Carver answered:

"From an old book."
"What book?" asked the Senator.
Carver replied, "The Bible."
The Senator inquired, "Does the Bible tell all about peanuts?"
"No, Sir" Dr. Carver replied, "But it tells about the God who made the peanut. I asked Him to show me what to do with the peanut, and He did.""

If that doesn't dramatically show everyone how bringing our faith into the study of science is not only good, but very good, then I don't know what would.

Then I'd hate to tell you, you don't know.

Cute anecdote, however.

 

[shernren]

Too bad I'm not into practicing biology (physics is more my field, as I've previously mentioned), or else I'd look forward to saying this someday ...

"From an old book."
"What book?" asked the Senator.
Carver replied, "The Bible."
The Senator inquired, "Does the Bible tell all about evolution?"
"No, Sir" Dr. Carver replied, "But it tells about the God who used evolution. I asked Him to show me what to do with evolution, and He did.""

As I've said before, only the Christian can find true value and worth in the physical measurements he makes of the universe around him - but that doesn't mean his measurements themselves are going to turn out any different from the measurements made by anybody else he asks.

 

[chaoschristian]

If that doesn't dramatically show everyone how bringing our faith into the study of science is not only good, but very good, then I don't know what would.

What that anectdote does tell us is that our faith can be the guiding and supporting hand that sustains us through the processes, trials and tribulations of scientific inquery. It does not tell us that our faith is a good source for or, as you claimed earlier, a good boundary around science.

How did Carver learn what he learned about the peanut? Directly from the Bible or revelations from God? No. He learned them through inquery. Perhaps he was inspired by God to go and do this, but it wasn't theology that allowed him to do it, it was the scientific method.

Let's go back to the original example I provided you in the other thread: Hansen's Disease, AKA Leprosy.

What does the Bible tell us about Hansen's Disease and its victims?

8 "The person to be cleansed must wash his clothes, shave off all his hair and bathe with water; then he will be ceremonially clean. After this he may come into the camp, but he must stay outside his tent for seven days.

29 "If a man or woman has a sore on the head or on the chin, 30 the priest is to examine the sore, and if it appears to be more than skin deep and the hair in it is yellow and thin, the priest shall pronounce that person unclean; it is an itch, an infectious disease of the head or chin. 31 But if, when the priest examines this kind of sore, it does not seem to be more than skin deep and there is no black hair in it, then the priest is to put the infected person in isolation for seven days. 32 On the seventh day the priest is to examine the sore, and if the itch has not spread and there is no yellow hair in it and it does not appear to be more than skin deep, 33 he must be shaved except for the diseased area, and the priest is to keep him in isolation another seven days.

9 On the seventh day he must shave off all his hair; he must shave his head, his beard, his eyebrows and the rest of his hair. He must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water, and he will be clean.

8 When Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his robes, he sent him this message: "Why have you torn your robes? Have the man come to me and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel." 9 So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of Elisha's house. 10 Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, "Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed."

Note that the emphasis on treatment is focused on spiritual cleanliness and purity. Lepers were seen, not just in Judeo-Christian culture, but universally, as not just diseased but also spirituall unclean - cursed.

Because of this curse lepers were/are forced to live apart from community, seperated from friends and family, ostracized from society and treated as less than low.

Even in the 20th century US official leper colonies were run more as prisons than as medical facilities.

Leprosy wasn't just a disease, it was a shame upon the person and a spiritual anathema.

Now, it wasn't until certain doctors were willing to see past this bigotry and search earnestly for the mechanism that allowed the disease to flourish in humans that a cure was eventually discovered.

What was discovered is that Hansen's Disease in almost impossible to get - 90% of humanity is immune to it.

What was discovered is that Hansen's Disease is not highly contagious, unlike other Bible era diseases. Of the 10% of humanity who are capable of contracting Hansen's, it takes precise conditions.

What was discovered is that once cured the patient turns out to be - oh guess what, not a spiritual demon, but just a regular person.

What was discovered was that the very rituals prescribed by the Bible (washing in cold water) would have promoted growth of the bacteria, which love the cold, but hate heat.

So, if medical science had stayed within the bounds of Biblical thinking on this issue, then lepers would continue to this day to be seen as a cursed people, plagued by God, and incurable.

Rather, science saw beyond the ignorance, and through the process of scientific inquery, discovered the cause and cure for the disease and help free thousands of people from their cultural exile.

In this case, the Bible was wrong and science was right (that's putting a sharp point on it).

Let me ask you, because of this is faith at risk? Is God toppled off of His throne?

 

[DailyBlessings]

I don't see what the anecdote has to do with an origins discussion. I don't think anyone in the C-O section is going to advocate that Christians shouldn't be allowed to do science. But misapplying biblical literalism to try and break apart widely accepted theories isn't doing science- it's protesting it. And Carver did not do this- he prayed and revelation came to him through the vessels of his intellect and his observation of the physical Creation.

 

[vossler]

Then I'd hate to tell you, you don't know.

That's o.k., I'm used to not knowing, sometimes I psyche myself into thinking I know something, but it usually doesn't take long for me to figure out I know nothing. Once again it has been proven.

 

[vossler]

What that anectdote does tell us is that our faith can be the guiding and supporting hand that sustains us through the processes, trials and tribulations of scientific inquery. It does not tell us that our faith is a good source for or, as you claimed earlier, a good boundary around science.

No, God is the source, our faith is only what brings us to God.

How did Carver learn what he learned about the peanut? Directly from the Bible or revelations from God? No. He learned them through inquery. Perhaps he was inspired by God to go and do this, but it wasn't theology that allowed him to do it, it was the scientific method.

His inquery was directed and led by God. Carver, when doing his experiments and tests, didn't use science text books in his work. He relied soley on God to lead him.

This doesn't mean that God won't use books or knowledge learned from books, it just demonstrates that it isn't essential.

Let's go back to the original example I provided you in the other thread: Hansen's Disease, AKA Leprosy.

What does the Bible tell us about Hansen's Disease and its victims?

Well there is some dispute as to whether what Leviticus is describing is actually Hansen's Disease.


http://home.usmo.com/~kocu/leprosy.html

While reading some commentaries a similar theme developed. The leprosy referenced in Leviticus was considered an uncleanness rather than a disease.

 

[chaoschristian]

No, God is the source, our faith is only what brings us to God.

I used the wrong word - replace faith with religion, I think that better expresses what I was trying to convey. I didn't mean our faith as in our personal acceptance of God, but rather our faith as in the Christian faith/Christian church.

His inquery was directed and led by God. Carver, when doing his experiments and tests, didn't use science text books in his work. He relied soley on God to lead him.

This looks funny, but I know you don't mean it that way, and I don't either, but are you suggesting that peanut technology was divinely inspired? Because that's how I'm reading it.

God inspires us all, through the hand of the Holy Spirit. Yet what I come away with after reading your post is that Carver was nothing more than God's muppet.

This doesn't mean that God won't use books or knowledge learned from books, it just demonstrates that it isn't essential.

I'd have to re-familiarize myself with Carver's biography. It wouldn't surprise me if he was a self-made man without a former education, but that's not the point. Whether he knew it or not Carver was employing some version of the scientific method to get his results, or else I don't think he could have made so many discoveries. He certainly didn't stumble into these things by accident over and over again.

Well there is some dispute as to whether what Leviticus is describing is actually Hansen's Disease.

http://home.usmo.com/~kocu/leprosy.html

While reading some commentaries a similar theme developed. The leprosy referenced in Leviticus was considered an uncleanness rather than a disease.

Perhaps so, but the ostracizing of lepers still existed and the reason for it was based on scripture within Judeo-Christian culture.

 

[Remus]

Perhaps so, but the ostracizing of lepers still existed and the reason for it was based on scripture within Judeo-Christian culture.

I don't see the problem. This sounds like sound advice to me. If someone has an infectious disease, isn't it better to separate them than it is to infect more people?

 

[chaoschristian]

I don't see the problem. This sounds like sound advice to me. If someone has an infectious disease, isn't it better to separate them than it is to infect more people?

The problem is that 90% of the world's population can't get leprosy, and it is not a very contagious disease. It is in fact rather hard to get, as opposed to small pox.

The point being that the prejudice against these 'spiritually unclean' people prevented others from investigating the real nature of the disease. And so lepers needlessly suffered outside of the effects of their disease because of religiously motivated thinking.

 

[vossler]

I used the wrong word - replace faith with religion, I think that better expresses what I was trying to convey. I didn't mean our faith as in our personal acceptance of God, but rather our faith as in the Christian faith/Christian church.

This looks funny, but I know you don't mean it that way, and I don't either, but are you suggesting that peanut technology was divinely inspired? Because that's how I'm reading it.

The term divinely inspired may not fully and accurately portray what I believe happened. I don't believe Carver would have accomplished what he did without first putting his trust and faith in his Lord. This in turn allowed the grace and blessing of God to be reflected in his work. Carver honored God and God in turn honored his work.

God inspires us all, through the hand of the Holy Spirit. Yet what I come away with after reading your post is that Carver was nothing more than God's muppet.

If we were all inspired by God then I believe our work would reflect it. If God is given enough latitude, I believe our work will reflect His inspiration to the same degree in which we put our trust and faith in Him. If we have great faith, then I believe we can't help but to do great work.

I'd have to re-familiarize myself with Carver's biography. It wouldn't surprise me if he was a self-made man without a former education, but that's not the point. Whether he knew it or not Carver was employing some version of the scientific method to get his results, or else I don't think he could have made so many discoveries. He certainly didn't stumble into these things by accident over and over again.

Oh Carver was an educated man (he had a masters degree); my point wasn't that he didn't possess an education and that his inventions were then somehow divinely inspired. No, my point is that it was God that led him in his studies and helped him utilize his own natural bent, along with his education, to do all the things he did.

It wasduring his work in attempting to help the farmers with ideas such as crop rotations that he sought God in prayer asking "Mr. Creator, why did You make the peanut?"
God then led Carver to discover over 300 marketable products made from the peanut, including mayonnaise, cheese, shampoo, instant coffee, flour, soap, rubber, face powder, plastics, adhesives, axle grease, and pickles.

The point here wasn't that God, through Carver, discovered these things, but more Carver, by being an open and receptive vessel to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, discovered them. So yes, Carver more than likely used the scientific methodology in his work, but it was used in conjunction with, not exclusive to, the guidance and direction of his Lord and Savior.

So my point in all of this is just to state that we, just like George Washington Carver, shouldn't ever separate our religious beliefs from our vocation. One can be an incredibly smart and learned person and yet still benefit immensely by the Lord's guidance and direction in said vocation.

 

[Remus]

The problem is that 90% of the world's population can't get leprosy, and it is not a very contagious disease. It is in fact rather hard to get, as opposed to small pox.

Are you sure it's a "fact"? I've seen words more like "believed" and "we don't think" describing the contagiousness of this disease. Additionally, in 120 countries, leprosy is considered an endemic and at least one medical website suggested quarantine on occasion and that’s when they are able to treat the person. And even if your 90% number is correct, that still leaves 10% of the people that were at risk. Shouldn’t they attempt to limit this and other diseases? It’s not like they had much in the way of treatment.

Besides, I thought it was clear that the Bible wasn't even talking about Hansen's Disease. After all, the symptoms don't match. Didn't you notice this when you researched this disease?

The point being that the prejudice against these 'spiritually unclean' people prevented others from investigating the real nature of the disease. And so lepers needlessly suffered outside of the effects of their disease because of religiously motivated thinking.

So we have a huge group of people wandering around in the desert and you think there's going to be any kind of investigation of an infectious disease? Don't you think these people would have way too many other things to worry about?

 

[mark kennedy]

It is important to realize the context this prayer was made in. When Carver first managed to convince farmers to rotate their crops no one wanted to buy them. By the time it was over it had become a 200 million dollar buisness.

"Cotton had long been the South’s primary agricultural crop. But planting cotton decade after decade, without rotating crops, depleted the soil. Mounting debts plagued farmers. George urged farmers to reinvigorate their soil by planting peanuts and sweet potatoes. After some persuasion, farmers made peanuts and sweet potatoes number one in the South by devoting more and more acreage to these crops.

The trouble? No real markets existed for peanuts or sweet potatoes. No one wanted to buy the product, so it rotted in the fields, and farmers lost even more money. This disaster nearly crushed George. Deeply concerned, he prayed to God: “Mr. Creator, why did you make the peanut?”​

http://www.wcg.org/lit/gospel/christn/christn5.htm

What do I think of the quote, I think it's a testament to the power of prayer. Here is another scientist who just happens to be a creationist. He invented the MRI but when the Nobel committee gave the award for medicine he was excluded for no apparent reason. Some suspect it is because of the fact that he is a creationist.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/nobel.asp

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[The Lady Kate]

It wasduring his work in attempting to help the farmers with ideas such as crop rotations that he sought God in prayer asking "Mr. Creator, why did You make the peanut?"
God then led Carver to discover over 300 marketable products made from the peanut, including mayonnaise, cheese, shampoo, instant coffee, flour, soap, rubber, face powder, plastics, adhesives, axle grease, and pickles.

For the record, however... while God pointed the right direction, it was still Carver that did the lion's share of the actual work.

The point here wasn't that God, through Carver, discovered these things, but more Carver, by being an open and receptive vessel to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, discovered them. So yes, Carver more than likely used the scientific methodology in his work, but it was used in conjunction with, not exclusive to, the guidance and direction of his Lord and Savior.

Meaning that the point was that Carver's faith in God was the inspiration for his work, but had nothing to do with the method.

God did not dictate an answer verbatim for Carver, but inspired Carver to get off his backside, go forth, and find the answer, with the faith that there was an answer to be found... no matter what it might be.

So my point in all of this is just to state that we, just like George Washington Carver, shouldn't ever separate our religious beliefs from our vocation. One can be an incredibly smart and learned person and yet still benefit immensely by the Lord's guidance and direction in said vocation.

To a point, yes. Certainly, since God is the Creator of all, and since God never does anything without a reason, whenever we look to the "how" or "why" of something in nature, we can have faith that an answer can be found.

What that answer may be, however, is a whole other story.

Thomas Edison described Genius as being "1% inspiration and 99% persperation." That's the point I'm making. Faith alone should never be a substitute for an inquisitive mind and hard work.

Edison illustrated his point during his experiments with the electric light. After literally over 10,000 failed experiments, a colleague asked him if he was beginning to get discouraged... to which Edison replied, "Not at all! Look at the progress I've made! I've already discovered 10,000 ways not to do it! At this rate, through process of elimination, I should find a way to do it any day now!"

Now, I have no idea about Thomas Edison's faith. Whether his "1% inspiration" is divine in nature or simply the product of "Eureka! I got it!" isn't relevent. The point is that an idea, regardless of the source, doesn't get off the ground without back-breaking hard work. And that's one burden that God won't carry for us... nor should He, IMHO.

 

[chaoschristian]

Are you sure it's a "fact"? I've seen words more like "believed" and "we don't think" describing the contagiousness of this disease. Additionally, in 120 countries, leprosy is considered an endemic and at least one medical website suggested quarantine on occasion and that’s when they are able to treat the person. And even if your 90% number is correct, that still leaves 10% of the people that were at risk. Shouldn’t they attempt to limit this and other diseases? It’s not like they had much in the way of treatment.

Look here Link Note that this is not the article from which I derive my 90% number. I need to go back to the library and get the book I was reading so that I can cite directly from it rather than memory.

Here some pertinent text from the article (bolded parts are my emphasis):

It was 1873, and Dr. Armauer Hansen of Norway had astounding news for the world: leprosy was caused by a bacterium (Mycobacterium leprae). Until then, the disease was thought to be from a curse or sinful ways.

Modern medicine knows that leprosy is spread when an untreated infected person coughs or sneezes (but not by sexual contact or pregnancy). However, leprosy is not very contagious; approximately 95% of people have natural immunity to the disease. People with leprosy who are treated with medication do not need to be isolated from society. (Historically, people with leprosy were sent to "lepers' colonies" on remote islands or in special hospitals.)

Besides, I thought it was clear that the Bible wasn't even talking about Hansen's Disease. After all, the symptoms don't match. Didn't you notice this when you researched this disease?

Yes, it seems that it could be true that references to leprosy in the NT at least may be a mistranslation. However, that doesn't matter in the context of what I'm saying.

What I'm trying to get across is that beliefs regarding a particular ailment, as conveyed in scripture, effected attitudes towards both the disease and its victims in a far reaching manner. If Hansen had not been willing to see past these beliefs, then we would not know today what we know about leprosy, and its victims would still be kept in virtual prisons.

So we have a huge group of people wandering around in the desert and you think there's going to be any kind of investigation of an infectious disease? Don't you think these people would have way too many other things to worry about?

What I'm trying to talk about is how ancient religious beliefs have had a far reaching impact on problems that could have had solutions sooner if people's religious beliefs didn't prevent them from either pursuing the topic or seeing the real solutions.

I am not talking about the exiled Isrealites in particular.

 

[Remus]

Look here Link Note that this is not the article from which I derive my 90% number. I need to go back to the library and get the book I was reading so that I can cite directly from it rather than memory.

There's no need to look it up again. I've found several different references that give numbers ranging between 80% and 95%.

Modern medicine knows that leprosy is spread when an untreated infected person coughs or sneezes (but not by sexual contact or pregnancy).

Is about.com a good reference? I found this article which I would think is a much better source:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/leprosy/default.htm

The mode of transmission of leprosy is unclear and has been assumed to be via the respiratory system mainly through nasal droplets; broken skin also remains a possibility.

For some reason, about.com thinks that "Modern medicine knows that leprosy is spread when an untreated infected person coughs or sneezes" when in fact it is only assumed.

Yes, it seems that it could be true that references to leprosy in the NT at least may be a mistranslation. However, that doesn't matter in the context of what I'm saying.


What I'm trying to get across is that beliefs regarding a particular ailment, as conveyed in scripture, effected attitudes towards both the disease and its victims in a far reaching manner. If Hansen had not been willing to see past these beliefs, then we would not know today what we know about leprosy, and its victims would still be kept in virtual prisons.

Oh, I thought you were saying:
"In this case, the Bible was wrong and science was right (that's putting a sharp point on it)."
Do you still think that this is true?

What I'm trying to talk about is how ancient religious beliefs have had a far reaching impact on problems that could have had solutions sooner if people's religious beliefs didn't prevent them from either pursuing the topic or seeing the real solutions.

This is pure speculation.

 

[vossler]

For the record, however... while God pointed the right direction, it was still Carver that did the lion's share of the actual work.

For the record, no where did I state or imply otherwise.

Meaning that the point was that Carver's faith in God was the inspiration for his work, but had nothing to do with the method.

Again, no where did I state or imply otherwise.

God did not dictate an answer verbatim for Carver, but inspired Carver to get off his backside, go forth, and find the answer, with the faith that there was an answer to be found... no matter what it might be.

This is getting to be a broken record but; no where did I state or imply otherwise.

To a point, yes. Certainly, since God is the Creator of all, and since God never does anything without a reason, whenever we look to the "how" or "why" of something in nature, we can have faith that an answer can be found.

Faith in what, an answer?

What that answer may be, however, is a whole other story.

Thomas Edison described Genius as being "1% inspiration and 99% persperation." That's the point I'm making. Faith alone should never be a substitute for an inquisitive mind and hard work.

Again, no where did I state or imply faith alone is a substitute for anything.

Edison illustrated his point during his experiments with the electric light. After literally over 10,000 failed experiments, a colleague asked him if he was beginning to get discouraged... to which Edison replied, "Not at all! Look at the progress I've made! I've already discovered 10,000 ways not to do it! At this rate, through process of elimination, I should find a way to do it any day now!"

I'm guessing your point here is perserverance pays off. I'll go with that!

Now, I have no idea about Thomas Edison's faith. Whether his "1% inspiration" is divine in nature or simply the product of "Eureka! I got it!" isn't relevent. The point is that an idea, regardless of the source, doesn't get off the ground without back-breaking hard work. And that's one burden that God won't carry for us... nor should He, IMHO.

Again, no where did I state or imply that hard work wasn't an important element.

 

[The Lady Kate]

For the record, no where did I state or imply otherwise...
Again, no where did I state or imply that hard work wasn't an important element.

Well then, while religious faith and science need not be mutually exclusive, belief in a creator isn't a necessary part of the scientific process... and certainly shouldn't be the primary ingredient.

If that's the point we're agreeing on, then I certainly have no idea what the point of the Carver story was in the first place.

It couldn't be to argue against Atheism in science, because science isn't Atheistic.

It's not to protest the exclusion of God in science, because it seems we agree that God's not excluded from anywhere He should be, and not explicitly mentioned wherever He doesn't have to be.

I can't be to argue in favor of supernaturalism in sacientific methodology, because we just agreed that it's not a part of science.

So... what was the point?

 

[vossler]

Well then, while religious faith and science need not be mutually exclusive, belief in a creator isn't a necessary part of the scientific process... and certainly shouldn't be the primary ingredient.

Belief in the Creator is a necessary part of everything we do. I can't think of a single thing I do where my beliefs don't play a major role. I believe that God wants all Christians should see their world that way.

If that's the point we're agreeing on, then I certainly have no idea what the point of the Carver story was in the first place.

The point of the story was that many Christians believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive studies.

It couldn't be to argue against Atheism in science, because science isn't Atheistic.

No science isn't atheistic, but the approach that most scientists take to it is.

It's not to protest the exclusion of God in science, because it seems we agree that God's not excluded from anywhere He should be, and not explicitly mentioned wherever He doesn't have to be.

I can't think of a single place where He shouldn't be mentioned. I take it you have a list where He shouldn't, could you please share?

I can't be to argue in favor of supernaturalism in sacientific methodology, because we just agreed that it's not a part of science.

Not in methodology because you're right He's not a part of that, that's our own doing, but He should be a part of our every thought process.

So... what was the point?

I hope you've got it now.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Belief in the Creator is a necessary part of everything we do. I can't think of a single thing I do where my beliefs don't play a major role. I believe that God wants all Christians should see their world that way.
The point of the story was that many Christians believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive studies.
No science isn't atheistic, but the approach that most scientists take to it is.

Not Atheistic, but agnostic. Whether God exists or not is simply not a factor to the methodology.

Either the Atheists are right, and God doesn't exist, so He can't affect the outcome of a given experiment, or we're right, and He does exist, and won't affect the outcome of a given scientific experiment.

In other words... either 2+2=4, or 2+2+God=4. does it matter either way?

I can't think of a single place where He shouldn't be mentioned. I take it you have a list where He shouldn't, could you please share?

Look at the math problem above... is there any point to developing Theistic Algebra?

Not in methodology because you're right He's not a part of that, that's our own doing, but He should be a part of our every thought process.

And so He is... but not so that we skew the outcome in what we may think is His favor.

I hope you've got it now.

Still a little fuzzy... Theistic Algebra? Theistic Chemistry? Theistic Physics? Where shall we draw the line?

Must we preface every scientific endovor with "Of course, God could easily alter these results any way He wants?" Or can it go without saying, and for simplicity's sake, assume that He didn't?

Or, when We don't get the results we want, is that our license to say "Goddidit?"