Brandon Jordahl, Fargo, Published July 28 2012
‘God particle’ science, not faithIn response to Ken Koehler’s July 25 column regarding the “God particle,” I would like to explore the role of science because he seems a bit confused.
Science is a pursuit of knowledge, not an assertion of it (faith is an assertion). In science, one doesn’t add on unnecessary and unsupported explanations. God fits these criteria perfectly. The role of science is to pursue knowledge objectively.
There is no evidence for any god, let alone your specific God. Therefore, scientists don’t assume that by finding out more about the universe, they are learning about God’s creation. It is not the role of science to tiptoe around a 3,000-year-old book of desert fairy tales.
In regard to Koehler’s comment about the fathers of modern science, it is no surprise they were believers and said these things. At the time, the church had a large influence on society, an influence based on money and fear, and these men could not have expressed disbelief even if they wanted to.
It is also interesting that Koehler finds it so hard to believe that the universe may not have had a creator. He seems to feel that that is a ridiculous idea. But tell me, which is easier to believe: that the universe formed on its own (or always existed, or what it formed from always existed and became a universe), or that a deity who would have to be much more complex than the universe (to understate the level of complexity) simply existed or formed? The answer is obvious, not that what one finds more believable is necessarily the truth.