The bible holds that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Once upon a time this may have been believable, but with the amount of science available to us now, it’s a wonder that anyone can actually be in such deep denial. Consider the following data:
Stars are too far away – If we see a single star in the sky that is over 10,000 light years away, then obviously it has taken over 10,000 years for its light to reach Earth. How do we find the distance to stars? Read here.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation exists as proof (and a dating agent) of the big bang – While this is a very hard concept to wrap one’s head around, it is explained slowly and easily here. It was proven to date the universe at 13 billion years old here.
Radiometric dating – Carbon dating, by far the most popular, is but one form of radiometric dating. All radioactive isotopes have a half-life, and they have a stable and predictable way of breaking down over time. Using math we can find out how long a “zeroed” clock (such as igneous rock) has been on the earth. A complex explanation is found here (complex but thorough) and an easy-to-understand video is found on YouTube here. This video not only covers Dendrochronology, which is another proof of the world’s age, but it covers every single argument against carbon dating and why they are fallacious.
This is all very hard for the average person to have a good grasp of, and creationists play on this ignorance of the masses. I used to have a limited view of evolution and a terrible misunderstanding of it based on what creationists had taught me. “Why are there still living intermediates?” I’d ask. “Where are the missing links?” These are stupid questions based on ignorance of the issue, and since then I’ve corrected my ignorance.
The church is a source of misguidance. They teach us the scientific findings of herdsmen tribes that lived thousands of years ago and then they tell us that anything contrary to that must be false. It’s agnosticism – all new information has to be compared with old information, and if found incompatible, discarded. We all know of Galileo’s struggle with the Catholic Church when he tried to disavow public belief in a geocentric universe.
Science allows us to not only learn new things but to fix old mistakes in thought. This branch of learning is not filled with conspirators who wish to throw disinformation at us in order to kill religion, but rather discoverers who want to share their discoveries with others so that the whole world may know every truth. If a new discovery conflicts with religion, it’s not because of bias, but because religion is outdated and pragmatically unlearned. You don’t have to take a researcher’s word on faith, but you yourself can duplicate their process to get a similar (or dissimilar) result.
However, “christian science” is filled with bias. Do you expect or believe that a religious scientist will, if finding new information that is incompatible with the bible, accept and share it? The famous Templeton Study, which sought to prove prayer’s power, was conducted with a research grant from the John Templeton Foundation. A brief synopsis can be found here, and the actual published material from the researchers can be found here.
In short, prayer was tested and found to have no effect. In fact, it had a worse effect on those who were being prayed for and knew about it. Now, one might wonder, why even include this group? This is outside of the double-blind and therefore completely reliable part of the test. But, I think it was done to prove that prayer works. We all know, from the layman to the scientist, that people get healed from the placebo effect. Might prayer itself work as a placebo? It seems logical, but the answer is that (at least in the case of heart surgery) it has a detrimental effect.
Science can be used to test religion, its beliefs as well as its history. There’s a good reason that science and religion clash so often – religion is unscientific, and constantly proven to be false. Such as the bible’s take on the universe’s age – totally false.