Will Science Ever Prove or Accept the Existence of God?

As our knowledge of the universe continues to expand, it would be expected that we would get closer to understanding and confirming that a divine creator was behind the creation of all that we know to exist. We have explained the creation, evolution of life forms, and many other mysteries of the universe in scientific terms. We have always trusted those in the field of science to inform us of new discoveries of truth and facts without the dialogs of how it proves we don't need a God.

Yet I see articles in respected scientific journals concerning why Christians and other people of religion should embrace THEIR interpretation of the data and abandon their faith in a God. As Christians and people of religion, it seems we have been fighting an uphill battle for decades about what to believe in our holy book the Bible, with scientists who seem bent on disproving every word, story, and moral lesson contained in it. It is only lately that I have noticed the science community abandon their usual objectiveness and begin to attack anyone who doesn't see things their way.

If the Bible is truth, then where is the science, which is also supposed to be about truth.

To be fair, it seems there are a few scientists, in the minority, who hold to the truths contained in the Bible, in spite of the flood of propaganda being spewed in the university classrooms about the "superstition" and "impossible miracle tales" contained in the book. The problem I have with the professors who heave such venom toward anyone who accepts those  ideas as "truth" is, they never take the time to define what they mean by "superstition", or "magic", another word that is a favorite among atheists.

They generally mean, I believe, anything that cannot possibly be true, without specifying why it can't be true. "Superstition" or "Supernatural" are two words that usually apply to an event that is beyond what is possible under "natural" conditions as we know them. But lately scientists have been admitting that "anything" is possible, under the right physical conditions. So where does the "impossible' come in. 

Anyone who resorts to using the word "magic" is admitting that they do not understand how something can happen. Any sufficiently advanced technological event will always seem as "magic" to an uninformed and uneducated electorate that doesn't comprehend how it is possible. There are many people in the world today that don't understand how cars or televisions work, and describe those as magic. How many times have we seen in print in these blogs the use of the term "magic fairy" by an atheist, who obviously has relegated  all biblical events to this realm. The aim by such is to ridicule those who believe the Bible is truth, when they actually show they are lacking of the understanding themselves to see those events as people of religion do. They are like the primitives who see a car and think automatically "magic" or "supernatural", because they are incapable of trying to understand or lacking the ability.

I'm not saying that all people of religion understand how miracles take place in the world in physical terms, but that we do understand and accept, probably better than most scientists, that our knowledge is still very limited concerning the universe, and that it is foolish to say something is "impossible" as long as we still don't understand fully WHY it is impossible.

I myself used to think that being a scientist was about finding the truth about any subject of study and exploring other truths related to that field. There was a time 50 years ago when that was true. When another scientist discovered a "new" truth, it of course was rejected until proven and duplicated by other scientists, and once proven, was accepted. A good example of this process was the "Plate Tectonics Theory". It was advanced over 100 years ago, but was not accepted until the 1950's  when evidence for it began to overwhelm the field of geology.

Many people have begun to distrust science to give us the truth, mainly because of the global warming issue, but also considering religious matters.

For the past 35 years a change has come about in the scientific community that has altered the perception and character of science as seen by the general public. While it is true that many new truths are being discovered in every field of science, the nature of presenting those truths is very revealing of how science has changed.

Global warming may be a real phenomenon but it seems that 90% of the scientific community is more concerned with "propaganda" about how to present the problem than solving its mysteries.

Yes, I said mysteries.

We still don't know for certain that the changes we have seen in the last 100 years are due mainly to man or natural climatic cycles, or both. Most scientists in this field today would have you believe that it is entirely due to man, when the truth is not yet known to what degree, man impacted those changes. If  they are due entirely to man's interference then what caused similar cycles 13,000 years ago during the Younger Dryas period? Did man cause the "little ice age" of 300 years from the mid 1500's to the mid 1800's? What about the drastic warming period just 1000 years ago near the end of the "Dark Ages".

The degree to which so-called credible scientists will go to promote an "agenda" and to politicize it, was evident in the revealing "stolen" emails which made the news lately. They clearly indicated their intent to misinform the public and to hide any data that didn't promote or support "man-made global warming". How can we trust or believe them in anything now?

The history of bias against Christianity and religion is even more shameful. During the 1800's most scientists considered ALL cities, stories, and characters in the Old Testament to be fables and just colorful stories, but nothing more. Then within the last 100 years most of the cities of "the land on Shinar", or Sumer, as we now call it, were found buried in the sands of Mesopotamia, with tablets verifying many of the ideas in the O.T. In spite of the mounting evidence for the truth of the Bible, today many professors increasingly penalize students for using the book as a reference in class papers, and ridicule any student who supports the text in the book.

Will science ever prove or admit the existence of God? I once believed it would, but have lately realized that to do so would go against the very nature of most scientists today. They live to prove otherwise, regardless of what the data or experiments say. It is possible to "interpret" any new scientific discovery as "proof" of the non-existence of God, if that is your agenda. You simply hide or "reinterpret" all evidence that suggests otherwise. If God or Jesus were to come down to Earth and land in the middle of Central Park or on the White House lawn, I believe most scientists would embrace a new theory that the earth's crust has cracked and is emitting huge quantities of ethylene gas that is causing mass hallucinations.

Christians and people with religious faith are ridiculed and seen by most of the "intellectually elite" today as misguided and uninformed. Which is the greater sin, to accept on faith those things we don't understand, and admit that we may never completely understand God's work, or to be so biased against those of faith that no amount of "proof" would ever be sufficient to change their minds?

No one is so blind as he who WILL NOT SEE.