While Christians continue to look for immorality through blind faith in supernatural myths, science continues the hard work of asking penetrating questions about our existence. Where did we come from? Where are we going?
Our conclusions are not always correct, but it is the process that is never ending and that is progress. First, the scientist asks the question without motivated thinking in advance, just the open-ended question, then looks for any scintilla of evidence that points in any direction. From the evidence found, the scientist begins a path of research and possibly progresses to theory development. But this is a theory. It is open for debate and free thinking and is debated by scientific peers and published in scientific journals for examination. It may be valid and true or it may have a glitch, or upon leading to more newly found evidence, its conclusions may be adjusted. In other words, the scientific process is not static. Its fluid, constantly examining, asking questions, looking for answers.
That we should be here at all is a miracle, but what caused the miracle? Take for example that Einstein first proposed the “cosmological constant”, as a mathematical fix to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract. Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion. Friedmen, a Russian mathematician, realized that this was an unstable fix, like balancing a pencil on its point, and proposed an expanding universe model, now called the Big Bang theory. When Hubble’s study of nearby galaxies showed that the universe was indeed expanding, Einstein regretted modifying his elegant theory of relativity.
The “cosmological constant” is technically the value of energy density of the vacuum of space, but what it actually means is that when the laws of physics are applied, the chances of us being here is quite small, practically nonexistent. “One way to explain the daunting serendipity captured by the “cosmological constant” has been to posit a universe made of strings,” as scientist Oren Harman puts it. For excellent explanation of string theory see: Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe; Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (W. W. Norton, 2004; new edition, 2010).
However, peer scientists continue to ask questions about the theory and debate its accuracy. It is through this process that refinement begins its own process. Scientist Peter Woit writes Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String theory and the search for unity in Physical Law (Basic 2006), as debate and refinement continues. This process of examination is how active flow reaches validity in the sifting and resifting of a theory. Would that religion be as honest?
For all we think we know be it in religion or science, religion chooses to remain static, while science searches out the tough questions and seeks analysis. Science is changing at an ever-quickening pace, as humankind attempts to pry open the secrets of the heavens.
Help us continue our mission of embarking down the path of answering the sensitive questions and providing products that reflect this journey.