Flat earth or round? A crystal sphere around the earth as the heavens, or a cosmos filled with planets, stars, galaxies, and nebulas? An earth-centered planetary system, or a sun-centered solar system? An earth that is 6,000 years old, or an earth over 4.5 billion years old? Adam and Eve as the first humans, or a long hominid evolution? Evidence of a deluge or evidence of greater glaciations in the past?

In the past, whenever religion and science have been in conflict over some aspect of the nature of the physical world, the religious-I believe-have always been wrong. And when science has been shown to be in error, it has been scientists who have corrected the error, not someone "doing religion." This is not to say that all scientists, past and present, are non-religious-quite the contrary. Most people, including scientists, have a religious belief. But I believe the really successful scientists are those who can keep their religious beliefs and their scientific endeavors separated. One good example was Austrian monk Gregor Mendel, who, by way of experiments in cross-pollination of garden peas and the careful statistical analysis of the results, gave us the basic tenets of genetics.

Sometimes new discoveries cause controversy, such as the well-known examples of Galileo and Darwin. Galileo was brought before the Inquisition for upholding the Copernican system, which put the sun in the center of our solar system, rather than the earth. Darwin's studies and book Origin of Species established the theory of organic evolution and started the controversy about evolution that is still disputed by creationists today.

Another example is the biblical story of Noah and the flood. Most skeptics, including me, are unconvinced that it ever happened as presented in the bible. However, there is an interesting side story, involving the birth of glaciology. If you were to go back in time to around 1800, you would find that a fair number of scientists might be termed "religious scientists". Coming from colleges and universities dominated and funded by various religions of the world and being religious individuals themselves, they approached science in a very different way than most modern scientists.

In the case of the biblical flood, these "religious scientists" set out to verify the flood by finding evidence to fit their beliefs. As they gazed upon the landscapes of northern Europe, they found what they were looking for: a rugged, seemingly chaotic topography, which was surely the work of the turbid waters of the flood. Their mistake, however, was setting out with their minds already made up, making the evidence fit pre-determined conclusions. This is not the scientific method.

In 1821, a Swiss engineer named J. Venetz presented lucid and organized arguments about the extent of past alpine glaciers. He argued that glaciers once extended much further down their pathways and that when they receded, they left behind large boulders, which were of the rock types from further up the path of the glacier. The glaciers also left behind poorly sorted surface materials and the U-shaped canyons. His arguments were not well received, as you may well expect. It wasn't until 1837, when Louis Agassiz took up the argument, that this theory began to be accepted. Agassiz, along with a number of other associates, argued for years in favor of glaciers as the origin of the rugged topographical features observed in northern Europe. From those years of persistence and study came glaciology. To be fair, it should be noted that resistance to these new ideas did not only come from religious individuals but also from scientific orthodoxy (humans of all persuasions are stubborn to change).

The study of the historical origins of glaciology and the study of glaciers and their effects is a fascinating one. Suffice it to say that most geologists and other scientists interested in earth history accept glaciers as the origin of the features that were once considered evidence of the flood. They are now known as glacial moraines, till, erratics, eskers, and other well-studied and verified phenomenon.

Interestingly, a modern version of the "religious scientist" exists and is gaining momentum. One example is a television program called Origins, which presents varying aspects of what is called "creation science." One episode sets forth the premise that the entire stratigraphic column was laid down in that one event, known as, you guessed it, Noah's flood.

That's right: all the rocks and sediments of the continents were laid out in differentiated layers, with igneous (volcanic) layers not mentioned. Thus, all the mountains are only as old as the flood (I presume), and the remains of living organisms became fossilized in the relatively short time since the flood. Having studied geology and physical geography, and having walked the trail from the North rim of the Grand Canyon to the Colorado River and observed the grandeur of the stratigraphic column as it really is, I find this particular "creation science" notion rather amusing, to say the least.

My intention is not to be anti-religious. I realize that faith in a deity brings great comfort to the majority of humans on earth. That faith, combined with human emotions, adds a richness to humanity, especially through the arts. But when the stubbornness of religious orthodoxy tries to hold on to mythological ideas about the physical world in the light of scientific fact they make a big mistake, and are often, if not always, in error. The religious faithful may get satisfaction from the mysteries that surround us, but for me, I prefer the ways of science: the ways of Agassiz, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, Darwin, Faraday, Maxwell, Edison, Marconi, Bell, Fleming, Heisenberg, Harvey, Rutherford, Mendel, Planck, Lister, Jenner, Roentgen, Fermi, Bronowski, Hubble, Asimov, Gould, Sagan, Feynman, Dawkins, and many more. These scientists and hundreds more like them were not just awed by the mysteries around them, but allowed these curiosities to pique their interest, leading to experimentation, observation, testing, and coming up with answers, which have solved many a mystery before going on to the next. Again, the scientific method proves itself superior to the ways of religious science.

A quote from author Douglas Walton seems appropriate to end with: "The rise of science brought with it a kind of positivist way of thinking, to the effect that knowledge should be based on scientific experimentation and mathematical calculation, and that all else is subjective."

--Robert Lane