Before the turn of this century, my practice of metaphysical healing increasingly included the public. I would find myself in conversations with people interested in the scientific healing aspect of Truth, Christ. However in the beginning, these conversations brought about a rude awakening for me. I was too often speaking in 19th century vernacular when I shared Eddy’s ideas. So, I made the decision to admit that Eddy’s statements were deserving of expression in 21st century idiom and language and I developed the means to do so. It wasn’t long before logic took me further. If speaking about Eddy’s ideas in today’s language, I must also accept Science and Health in today’s language in print form. To insist otherwise is ethnocentric, impractical, and false-hearted.

However, something about a printable revision ran contrary to what I’d been humanly imprinted with. Either consciously, or unconsciously, my brain was impressed with the notion that a readable revision of Science and Health was not an option. For feedback, I mentioned the idea of Eddy’s Science and Health in modern day language to my Teacher of Christian Science.  He then gave me a shocked look, fumbling with words agreeable to the value of  revisions. The subject was dropped as I wasn’t prepared to say anymore. I then bounced the idea off other students of Christian Science, but the idea came right back like a hot potato.

I remember going through mental gyrations that eventually calmed to strength. I reasoned with the motivation to be truthful and fall into line with progress. In other words, I took the steps to remove myself from incorrect reasoning that a revision is changing Eddy’s words, and from my own personal attachment to Eddy’s words.

Then a physical problem presented itself. After being in a horrific accident, I was fighting for my life. Timid conservatism was insisting it was better to go along with common assumptions. I felt privileged being familiar with Eddy’s words; they helped me immensely, so why change? Why repent? The answer blared back: because healing truths are not confined to physical states. And, more importantly, good ideas are to be shared, not buried in the letter by the stubbornness of Eddy worshipers. My human mind gave way to self-evident spiritual truths. Healing ideas are timeless, universal, and all-inclusively expressed. My thought had changed and my body responded by healing naturally and quickly to the amazement of the surgeon and nurses.

I quietly and sincerely began revising and updating Science and Health just after the turn of the 21st century. Wow, a printable revision of Science and Health is a daunting task. The revision of Eddy’s Science and Health needed to be done extremely well, carefully, thoughtfully and lovingly, without personal ego or preferences.

In this pursuit, I spent countless hours developing the knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish this formidable task. I studied Bible history, researched other great thinkers who Eddy quoted and referenced, and became familiar with the times in which she lived. I examined the meaning of 19th century terminology and idiom, and learned how scientific and religious thought has progressed in the twentieth century. I was also active in a branch Church of Christ, Scientist, and consistently tended to my spiritual advancement.

The spiritual growth I attained while revising one chapter helped me to revise another chapter. Also, unique coincidences brought me together with people who were powerfully thankful for Eddy’s metaphysical ideas and offered me outstanding counsel on how to update it so the text is correct to the reader today.

One of the many examples of how Eddy’s meaning has been changed, because the words have NOT been revised, is the 21 times that she uses the word “apprehension” in Science and Health. Today, “apprehension” usually means anxiety or doubt.  In her time, it meant comprehension.

Much terminology, such as animal magnetism, phrenology, humors, brainology, and consumption, is outdated and consequently confusing to the reader. In the revision, these terms have been replaced with proper text that aids more fluent practical reading. Also, the book is now gender-inclusive. Although Eddy’s use of the term “man,” meaning person, was acceptable in the 19th century, it is not acceptable today. I also requested, and was granted permission to quote from modern Bibles and 20th century leaders. These quotes have been footnoted, as is appropriate for literature today.

After a few years of getting the revision on paper, I did approach The Christian Science Publishing Society for assistance in publishing 21st Century Science and Health. I was still a member of First Church of Christ, Scientist, and figured our church would appreciate the opportunity to again have some form of legal access to Eddy’s writings. During the 20th century, we members were so busy with rituals and human ideologies that we had neglected to follow Eddy and keep her work in line with the times. Consequently, the church lost any connection to a copyright to Science and Health long ago. It was similar to a person inheriting a piece of property and failing to take care of it or pay the taxes and so the inheritance got taken away.

However, instead of responding to me, the Publishing Society told the Christian Science Board of Directors what I was doing. The Directors then began a dialog with me (which I have documented). This dialog went on for a few weeks and was not only grossly agonizing, but also very enlightening. Members of the church Board asked me questions, I answered. I asked the Board of Directors questions and they gave me assumptions that lacked credibility. For instance, the Board of Directors told me that Eddy requested her words not be changed. Her request was fair and was necessary in the 19th century when copyright laws were lacking. However, to clearly identify if changes have been made to an author’s wording is common practice today. Eddy’s words are still intact to her name on her book, while my revision of Science and Health is clearly juxtaposed with my name.  The Boards misinterpretation of Eddy’s request caused me to question any further interpretation they had of her writings.  I then withdrew my church membership so as not to be affiliated to their beliefs and fears. I continued finishing the revision, quietly.

Please allow me to digress here.

With all due respect, I assert that I am not antagonistic to First Church of Christ, Scientist. I have happy memories of being around wonderful people when I was a member of First Church of Christ, Scientist. I recognize that many church members are outstanding citizens of the community and contribute admirably to society. I also came across a few extremists who promulgated Christian Science as a religion of not going to a doctor. A dogma I did not learn.

All human organizations have their problems and have been known to get superiority complexes. These complexes twist and morph, sometimes looking arrogant or out of touch with reality. But, I am partly to blame if I give someone power they really don’t and can’t possess. It is dishonest and lazy for me to presume a hierarchy can make final decisions or that I can just repeat Eddy’s words and expect progress.

Consequently, when I am upset, it is only with myself, while struggling to break from habituated human mindsets. I do feel Eddy’s counsel when she wrote, “Judge not the future advancement of Christian Science by the steps already taken, lest you yourself be condemned for failing to take the first step.” (Science and Health, Trade Edition,pg. 459)

Needless to say, I pray vigilantly for a regeneration of practicality, honest hard-work, and compassion.

History has proven over and again that people can break out of the habituated human mindsets enough to manifest improved ideals that benefit humanity and our world. Usually these transitions sometimes include confusion, so I now speak to the beliefs and fears I’ve come across.

I’ve been asked whether or not 21st Century Science and Health has been authorized by First Church of Christ, Scientist. It never occurred to me to ask the church for permission to fulfill my right and responsibility to revise Eddy’s Science and Health in order to advance divine Science today. Just as I wouldn’t dream of thinking I had to be authorized by First Church of Christ, Scientist in order to understand divine Science and experience its healing power. First Church of Christ, Scientist has no authority over Eddy’s Science and Health. It is in the public domain.

Science and Health is its own complete entity. It manifests itself as self-supportive.

Another mental position and fear that I’ve run into concerning my revision of Science and Health is that a revision of Eddy’s work is somehow immoral, unjustifiable, or impossible. This is easily treated. Words are used to stimulate thoughts, which in turn do stimulate the physical state. It is impossible to confine divine Science to words either spoken or written. Thoughts of God, Truth, are not in the letter, and certainly not restricted to the English language. I read from Eddy’s works, “The chief difficulty in conveying the teachings of divine Science accurately to human thought lies in this; that like all other languages, English is inadequate to the expression of spiritual conceptions and propositions, because one is obliged to use material terms in dealing with spiritual ideas.” (ibid., pg. 349) It is moral, just, and possible to express and manifest Truth ad-infinitum.

Eddy revised Science and Health over three hundred times, proving the document to be all-encompassing. She left an incredibly clear pattern to follow for revising. I studied many of her versions. “A human perception of divine Science, however limited, must be correct in order to be Science and subject to demonstration…hence the many readings given the Scriptures, and the requisite revisions of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.” (ibid., pg 361)

My book, 21st Century Science and Health is an offspring of Eddy’s Science and Health; one with, but not the same as.I will continue to take care of the revision with diligence. I am appreciative to the community of people around the world who helped me mature 21st Century Science and Health as spiritual ideas unfolded to us.

..
Video Rating: 0 / 5

Professional online math assistant to help your math assignment can be found easily on the internet. A group of math expert can help on your math homework. Since it takes wide analytical sense to deal with advance math problem, the math trigonometry help is available on the online math assistance.

Doing advance mathematic homework accurately and completely needs great skill and wide analytical sense. While statistic needs accurate association among the variables, once you lose the accuracy on the variables, you will need to repeat your work again. Most students will need help with probability problem. The online mathematic assistant is the solution for your math homework. When it comes to the trigonometry section, the calculations between the triangular corners are confusing. That is one of the reasons why the trigonometry is feared by almost every student.

If you look French through ages, you will quick understand that that knowledge is obviously connected to the conditions that are culturally ours. Well, we should be aware that it is what we recently said: “In the Middle Ages, there were French texts which were worth. There was, for example, the Roland’s song, etc.” Medieval university has completely ignored these French texts, even those produced by Rutebeuf or Villon. And, why did the Middle Age deliberately put aside these texts? Because this was not made to know, but, as Nietzsche very nicely said: it was the “gay science,” or the anti-science, the science used to protest, not recognized by the university: the science of that time, and until the XVI century, was Latin, French and these sciences were not more than a gay science.

When was the first displacement, which led the birth of “French literature,” effectuated? In the Renaissance, when the “Modern Times” were appearing with Rabelais. If Rabelais is ludicrous, “Gallic,” a pig and everything you want, it is because he was just rehabilitating the medieval gay science, but in French. It was a very great revolution: before, French texts had any status, from now on, they have one. Of course, there were a few years that it was being prepared. There was a pre literature, a “protohistory” literature, if I can say, represented by those that has been called the major Rhetoric men, which rhyme in French and who began to try to place their productions into the refined society. But Renaissance is a breath of oxygen; it is the French all fronts, the gay science carefully promoted.

But what has done this gay science promotion? At the beginning, it was liberation, with all the excesses that all liberation has: a real passion! However, little by little, the passion had decreased, and this was the birth of what we have called “literature,” which consisted to express even the most serious things in French, things of that time, the science of that time. But this was not the science of the university, which continued to be expressed in Latin, but, in some way, a science for university, which was passed in French. In these circumstances, you understand that texts such as those of Madam de La Fayette, the tragedies of Racine, or the comedies of Moliere were literature, as well as the speech of the Descartes’ method, the thoughts of Pascal or the spirit of the laws of Montesquieu. When we see Descartes’ writings included in the XVII° manuals of literature, we can see this: “What can the speech of the method do for literature?” Well, the answer is that because Descartes expressed his method in French. It was the same, with Pascal. There are certainly many illegible things on his writings, but it was the theology in French. Do you understand now that what makes good a tragedy of Racine, Descartes, Pascal or Montesquieu, was that these authors expressed in French a science that, since the middle age to the XVIII° siècle, would not interest anybody, because the science was written in Latin. We must see the “French literature,” as a phenomenon in the margin of university, and almost in conflict with it. If you want to see like this, university was the science of the “right,” and literature, the science of the “left””: this literature consisted to speak like a “decent man,” and not like an old grimoire reader, and this was not a science the same as the one of the university. You understand, in these circumstances, why the ancestors of our current “human sciences” are the psychological novelists, the classical theater, the moralists’ writers, etc. We see these texts as works of art. They had certainly this character-here too, but they had mainly this particular nature of represent a science in separation with the University of that time, and not only one that was worth as a university science but one that had hoped too well exceeds it.

When was the second displacement, which superintended the birth of our “human sciences,” effectuated? In the XIX°, that was the époque of Balzac and the realism. From the realistic movement, things are starting to evolve. Literature becomes a “literature of message.” From that time, who has worked with sociology for example? Zola. It is the thesis message, if I dare to say: novel to thesis, theater to thesis, written by philosophers (at university, at this time there was a long time that we haven’t think!)

And we are in the third displacement, this means: the culmination of thoughts (this means the end of literature), like Sartre: read what he tells in Situations of the “committed literature.” From the moment where literature has been committed, this is no more than a war weapon, this is no more than a gay science (it is even terribly sadder!) and this is no more literature, it became another thing (it belongs to you to name this as you want). “And after Sartre, you will ask me, what remains of the French literature?” The answer is: nothing. It is Byzantine; I mean the “new novel”, the “absurd theater,” the “new criticism.” Nothing! One day, someone asked me what is left of the French literature since the end of the second war (1945) to now. My first reaction was, precisely, to answer “nothing!” And then, after a carefully thought, I replied: “perhaps the words of Sartre, and the memories of Hadrian of Marguerite Yourcenar.” You must admit that this is not very much! You must conceive that French literature is dead, when the Science of men born.

This does not mean that it does not present any interest. Because, who spoke of the man, until the middle of the last century? Well, literature did. For the reason that since Bacon, it was born what he called the naturalist philosophy by the time of the Renaissance, and from this philosophy it comes the issues of our “nature sciences.” And to make a science of Man (with a capital letter!) this creature quasi divine, was excluded. Consequently, literature (history and philosophy included), has filled the historic role of conservatory of the man (“pre human sciences,” or, the gay science of Modern Times). People sometimes ask me this question: “How is it that, after having done your humanities studies, then you devoted to linguistics, and then to anthropology?” You understand that the only thing that I was interested in life was the answer to this question: What is a man (with a tiny letter)? Literature gave me the first answers, then I started to be engaged to what are the highest antiquities and the first real science of Man (thinking that language was natural in men), to be exact it is grammar, called “linguistic” when I was teaching, linguistics took me, logically, to anthropology. You see that there is, in my route, an intellectual and a perfect consistency. I close parenthesis here and I return to my business.

You understand that when somebody says to you, “I teach French literature” (from Rabelais to Sartre!) It became completely clichéd (it is good to be on museum) and, above all, how would you like to put all of these works in the same cart? This is ridiculous!

In the other hand, we must see that the texts we continue to call “literary” are a mass of determinisms. That is what I blame to my childhood teachers because instead of deconstruct the text, they took it globally (it was the famous “text explanation”), but it should have different specialists who would have treated those texts with different methods: there is, indeed, in the literary text the sociologist works, the psychoanalyst, the historian, the psychologist, the linguist, etc. In a single literary text there is a lot for what to devote a full year, the year which would be more informative as the exam, more or less intuitive of a series of “chosen pieces.” But it is true that such as education would require, of the professor in French Literature, a series of knowledge and a synthesis gift which is quite unusual! You can believe me, this is what I have tried to practice while I was a student (a superior student, it is true). But, believe me, I do not regret this: I am proud to believe, I am proud of passionate my students of License while explaining them… “The rabbit and the turtle”! I have never stopped to teach them to read, but wearing another glasses (already!) This is why I have always thought, and continue to believe that the question of programs and schedules have no interest (this is the kitchen ones.) The content, in a general way, have too little to do with the spirit formation. What really counts are the glasses, this means what some people call the method. That is why I think that literary texts cannot be successfully used in higher education.

Is it necessarily to remove the teaching of French Literature in our secondary education like some people, not without reason, want? I will answer: “no”, for the simple reason that, nobody (only a barbarian) is going to burn files. But if we do, we should also burn all our museums! But a museum, we can range that, we can range a few stops before to select certain oeuvres. I could take another example: the metropolitan. You go in the train and you browse the line, with the intention to stop in a few stations. Take again, these small tourist trains you make the “historic” tour of a city marking the time of stops before that or that monument. You all are going to laugh, but when I arrive in a city that I do not know; I borrow these small tourist trains and then I return to visit that or that monument which interested me the most. In other words, what French Literature teachers should propose in the end of secondary school, it is a perspective tour. But this perspective tour could be proposed by both the gym coach, why not, if he has good taste and if he knows how to read the Michelin Guide of literature and can catch the interest of his students!

That says, I have quite quickly understood, that at the same time that “human sciences” were taught in our “Faculties of Letters and human sciences” (it is the “and”, here, that is significant here), were always and only just literature, although they were parts, shortly after my studies of Philosophy License. It seems that these “human sciences,” taught in our Faculties of letters have an objective: the man with a small first letter, and no longer a capital letter, as it was the case in humanism which never ends to die. Then, some of these literary specialists of “human sciences” derive in decorating a man to try to make an object that looks scientific. They have taken from science, not its formalization requirement, but its language and its appearance, no more or less. Thus, some psychologists, baptized “Neuropsychologists,” put up with white blouses, have their laboratories, measure, online, etc. However, in those “labs,” it is certain that they are attempting to check “data”, but of the data which is never defined! Sociologists they make statistics! And they do not have a model underlying the phenomena that they describe, they cannot do anything but describe them (and not to explain). But how can they describe them? With numbers (all the same it makes them more intelligent). But statistics are like computers. If the data that we trust to computers is silly, it is certain that the computer will deal with this silliness (computers are ready to work with anything). It is the same in statistics: you will have silly answer in respond of a silly question.

Finally, haven’t taken anything from science but the appearance, I mean computing, statistics or laboratory, the object “man” (with a small m) is there and it is as virgin as it entered. It is true that these “human sciences” have nothing to do with science but outside the flattering of a simply testify to the claim of literary that have not been able to build scientifically their object.

It remained the sniper, Edgar Morin, who made good used of his concept of complexity. I do not say that he is silly, far from that, but I say that he thinks that we must forget everything from the past and start all over again: “The lost paradigm is definitively lost, but I will invent it all!” The result: it says nothing! For that reason, he refuges, like all the literary men, behind the complexity of men. “Study the phosphorus, ok! Analyze calves, it is already easier, but, compared to a man, a calf is all the same simple. A man, he is much more complicated, subtler, he has more ends!”

I was there, on my career when I had, like twenty years ago, the chance to meet Jean Gagnepain, and to be part of his disciples. When I met him I have quickly understood, that to preach a truly scientific knowledge of the man, meant that we have to shoot down the main obstacles to the advent of this new knowledge, beginning with these famous “Faculties of Letters and human sciences.” Indeed, if, for example, you refer to the Renaissance, you can see that humanism has not been able to prevail only when, under the blows of Rabelais and company, Sorbonne’s lock has jumped. But at the time, the old “Sorbonicoles”, exactly as those of today, wanted to reform themselves to adapt. But there were others, more realistic who understood that any reform was already condemned: there had to do something else. That is exactly what Jean Gagnepain understood.

In the age, which is no more the age of humanism, but the age of  the anti-humanism, I mean, the treatment of the man by man who presides over the emergence of a true man’ Science, it is time to become to be aware of what is the main obstacle to the beginning of this new era. The problem of training, not only for tomorrow, but also for today, was through the kill of literature. Certainly, if the current literature had become the enemies, it is after having been the most beautiful fleuron of the humanism of the university. But, as Marx said while speaking of bourgeois, they have been a necessary evil; they have played their historic role, the one of being the pre human sciences. From this point of view, the sciences called “soft” (psychology, sociology, political science) extend the historic role of literature (philosophy, beautiful letters, and history included). This historic role has consisted to put men inside the fridge for better study them, while waiting for science called “nature.”

I want to say that these “soft” sciences are being yield before the “hard” Sciences of the man, since the work of this genius still too poorly known, Jean Gagnepain, which is the real founder of the experimental Science of the man. Let me explain that.

It is Freud which gave to Jean Gagnepain the idea of an explanatory clinic, in other words, a type of clinic that allowed him to perpetually submit in question the theoretical model of the man that he has developed during almost half century. That is absolutely fundamental. The one, who really won, in the psychoanalytic treatment, was Freud, which recognized that he had never healed anyone! Freud, basically, became more and more intelligent and, in theory, more and more evil as he submitted his patients to his cure. That is what has given to Jean Gagnepain the idea of a clinic that he wanted to be squarely experimental. He said that it was not because we change of “object,” I mean, to “pass” from nature to man (constructing this “object” man, it is obvious) that we change scientifically: science must have, first of all a coherent model, and also, a place of verification. It must be experimented somewhere, where the idea that the clinic had, in the man, was the only place of verification. To talk about this clinic, Jean Gagnepain referred often the work of a mechanic. In a car, it is rare that everything is wrong at the same time: once, it is the ignition, then the carburetion, etc. It is why he always compared himself to a mechanic who had learned the mechanical in repairing the failure of a car. Because, as in a car, it is rare among the man that everything is wrong at the same time. Nothing breaks down at one stroke: we never lose lucidity, but the reason could become an object of experimental science.

Talking about that, the theory of mediation is what we can indeed call a clinical anthropology. And the mediators (grouped together under the name of School of Rennes), of the same time, are the first in the world to bet in the need to establish a scientific approach to the man who gives himself, of course, a theoretical model, and, at the same time, a place of experimentation. In other words, the link between theory and clinic is so fundamental, that cannot be separated one from the other…except, as I will do, most often, by convenience of exposure (and then we cannot do everything!)

I have spoken about Freud, but this does not mean that Jean Gagnepain unconditionally adheres himself to the psychoanalysis. It corrects the excesses. Excesses of verbosity, firstly because Freud had discovered the unconscious of the conscience representative, while there is also a technical “unconscious,” a social “unconscious” and a ethic “unconscious,” and this is why Jean Gagnepain replaces the concept of unconscious that is implied.

The second corrective is the service that he brings to the historicism in which Freud locked himself, the “stages,” the “regression”, historicism, etc. If you want to know, Jean Gagnepain is not for the Urszene (“primitive scene”,) but for the Grundszene (“fundamental scene”.)

The second precursor that Jean Gagnepain recognizes is Ferdinand de Saussure and his structural design of the verbal sign (in fact it is an anachronism: Ferdinand de Saussure has never used the word “structure,” he speaks of “system”.) The discovery of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) has been for Jean Gagnepain as for a lot of French intellectuals, a real revelation, and a revelation that came late (toward the end of the 40s), while the famous general linguistics course date…from 1916! (It is to tell you how it works in French University!) Well, the famous linguist Genovese is the first to have shown that, in the language anything was obvious, but that, under the phenomenon, there was another thing, that Jean Gagnepain baptized as “grammar,” for the object to the “rhetoric” which only, as we will see, is manifested in the phrase.

But it must be clear that the idea of “system” implementation of Saussure, and which was then called “structure” has been completely perverted by the successors of Saussure, those that are called “structuralists,” then “semiologists” and others “semiotics.” All of these people have given to sign an abusive importance: for them everything is a sign! This is the full recovery! Jean Gagnepain gives to the sign a considerable importance too, but not at all in the same way that the structuralists do. He uses it as analogue, this means that the principle of explanatory sign, is worth, analogue, for the tool, the person and the standard. That is, very quickly what Jean Gagnepain owe to Saussure.

Finally, it is the Marxist praxis which led Jean Gagnepain to the theory of an incorporated rationality. In other words, this idea of praxis, borrowed from Marx, has led him to ask the reality of the explanatory principle that is the reason, not from outside of the man, but in the man. And it is even the difference between the sciences called “of man” and the sciences called “of nature.” All of two belong to the same rationality, but it is found that, in nature, there is no reason anywhere: it is the man who explains it; in the other hand, the man has reason, it is even one of the characteristics of the “object” (the man) to be study scientifically. So if the sciences called “the man” cannot be that science in double (talking about mathematics), since the rationality is, at once, at the thinker and in the object that he studied. At the same time, it is important to make this incorporation of the rationality in the object even (the man) if that is the one who we want to study scientifically.

Among those who have preceded Jean Gagnepain, which has pushed this reality all alone, it is Marx which, as you know, history was not the fact of the “professional” historian (if he is historian of France, art, literature, etc. ) but of the historian that we all are. What had Marx envisaged, consciously? A theory of a man and as the man was defined by history, it was necessary to deal as scientifically as possible, by developing a historical materialism. Only again, as well as the semiology and the semiotics have played a tour to enjoy Saussure and have made ridicules the structuralism (including the one of Levi-Strauss) which became a new idealism, of the same Engels and Feuerbach have played the same turn to enjoy the historical materialism of Marx by pulling, as long as they were able, to what has been called. Then materialism generalized, this means that the “materialism dialectic” (which Marx, aged and tired, has finished by subscribing), and which was for the whole evolution of the cosmos! In other words, the “materialism dialectic,” in making dialectic a process for culture (this means for the man), and for the nature, it comes to a full materialism. In short words, “materialism dialectic” drowned Marx, exactly as structuralism drowned Saussure.

That said, and to conclude, I would like you to say a word to describe my relationship with Jean Gagnepain. In a general way, I would say that the Master is neither one we respect, nor the one with which we break: we live from him. In other words, the Master, we do respect ever, because the respect is a sign of death. When I speak to you about Jean Gagnepain, I do exist. But where am I myself? But, it is not important. This does not say that the memory of Jean Gagnepain is not, in itself, worthy of respect that we owe to human genius, but it cannot serve us, to me personally, and to you, through an intermediary, in the extent that we digested, where we are doing our case. Not a question we cannot stop a Master in history: this would be, beautiful and well the “destroy” to go after Sartre.

I would like to add that the Master, if he is a Master in thinking (which no longer exists in France for a long time) is not a teacher, on the contrary! Take Maître Albert, in the Middle Age: when Master Albert was confusing with the Sorbonne, he took his cliques and his claques and he did secession, I mean, that he took his neighborhoods on the place to which, in Paris, he gave his name: the Maubert plaza. He was installed there and he gave his cathedra outside, and everyone followed him. He had the charisma, he drew crowds, he thought, and he was free.

Well, Jean Gagnepain, if you want, is the Master Albert of the man’ Science. You understand, in these conditions, that his thoughts can disturb, or even indignant, especially for the academia.

So much better, if this thinking, that I will try to transmit to you (if you “us” made the honor to “us” follow) I invite you to reflection.

www.theory-mediation.com

Good science education is very important for our country’s future, including our national security.  If our enemies were the first ones to develop new weapons, and we couldn’t defend them we’d be in big trouble.

What is the best way to learn science?  Maybe there’s not just one “best way.”  Science projects and science experiments give crucial interactive experiences that help many children learn better.

A major university did a study about science courses and science majors a year ago. They found that 90 percent of college students abandon science as a major because of perceived poor teaching; and, of those who continue to study science, 74 percent of them think their science teaching is of bad quality.

This is not good news for science teachers.  They are perceived as not doing a good job engaging the students and getting them involved. Not that it is easy to do so. Students need interactive learning to get the most out of science classes.

In today’s world young people live with technology that has transformed their day to day lives. Watching videos on their cell phones, sending photographs and text messages through thin air — teachers need to get to these students involved in different ways than before.   Ironically the best way to engage science students is to use one of the oldest and most traditional ways of teaching science.

Science projects and science experiments need to become a part of everyday science curricula.  Not just for students who participate in science fair projects which often are seen as extra-curricular.  They require involvement of parents who often aren’t available to help all the time.  Projects need to be done in school, not at home.

That’s why internet resources like the Science Projects Store are so valuable.  This new website has a searchable database of 4,137 science project kits and over 5,000 science project books.   This is a great science project resource that parents, students and teachers need to know about.  (Please pass this article on to those who might be interested.)

On the Science Projects Store site you can search for any type of science project or experiment that exists. It has kits, books toys, games and accessories concerning:

1. Elementary school science projects 2. Math science projects 3. Winning science fair projects, 4. Fun experiments with science for children 5. Solar energy science projects 6. “Green” earth science projects 7. Energy science projects, 8. Science projects in chemistry 9. Scientific method projects 10. Science project with a volcano 11. Science projects with plants 12. Music science projects 13. Middle school science experiment 14. Water science projects 15. High School science projects

This website a great resource for science educators and parents,  and it also answers the question: “What do I buy my children for the holidays?” The gifts available from the Science Projects Store will entertain while they educate, and stimulate children’s brains, possibly raising their IQ.

Who knows, this website may help students enjoy science education more than ever before, and inspire them to solve the major problems faced by the world today!

Find More Science Articles

A comparison of with educational publishers may seem a little tenuous. But maybe, like them, the publishers know something. It is significant that there was not any new primary science equipment on the stands at the 2010 ASE Annual Conference in Nottingham this January. Actually, there were not even any old ones. After the years when the stands would be full of files and glossy books and discs, there was nothing for primary teachers to lust after, or even browse on. Whatever the educational publishers are working on, it ain’t primary science.

There may be good reasons for this. Many resources are now available online. It’s possible to look up a lesson plan on one of a hundred websites that offer the full Monty – from planning to assessment. Many staff libraries are already groaning with primary science resources – some of them regularly used. Government publications cover a lot of the ground, and don’t have to make a profit like commercial ones. So it’s a tough time for publishers, waiting to see whether the Rose Report will be adopted – or even if there is a change of government which might put Rose-related publishing in the recycling bin. How do you publish for a curriculum that is significantly local, individual and eclectic? Much safer to print for the National Strategies – go for core sales in language and numeracy. So no new primary science publishing – yet. It wasn’t always so. I recall travelling to Wales, twenty years ago, to talk about the publication of a new primary science scheme. I was mobbed – literally. The talk had to be moved from the school (not big enough) to the village hall. A hundred teachers led me down the street.

It goes without saying that since those days, primary school science has been a huge success story. Through the work of enthusiastic teachers both in and out of schools, it has established itself as an essential part of a full primary education. It certainly helped that it was given core status alongside English and mathematics; that it was subject to SATs testing and to reporting, and importantly that both children and teachers hugely enjoyed it.

The key factor in establishing it so soundly in classrooms in the first place was the work of Education Support Grant teachers. ESG teams across the country worked in different ways to show primary teachers how to manage this ‘new subject.’ The ASE history of primary science makes no mention of these foot soldiers. It’s a shameful omission. The great and the good may have fought the political battles to establish science as a core subject, but the real grass-roots changes were the work of ESG teams and the curriculum leaders in schools, who encouraged and supported primary teachers. The work of science coordinators is the life-blood of the subject. The result of their efforts is the UK’s exceptional showing in international comparisons. We do it well.

I’ve worked for forty years in primary education – the last twenty-five largely in primary school science. When I started, my bible was the Nuffield Junior Science Project. A contributor to it was another enthusiastic young teacher called Jim Rose. Forty years later, the subject is in serious trouble, and ironically, his report is not helping. I’m unconvinced by arguments that primary science is about to enter a great new decade of exciting developments. I’d love to agree, but I’m a primary scientist and I work from evidence. I attended a recent regional ASE meeting on science and the new curriculum, excellently planned and executed, with some really helpful practical ideas. Eight teachers attended. Contrast that with my village hall experience.

A great new era in primary school science? Allow me a Victor Meldrew moment. I don’t believe it.

I’m not the only one to think like this. The Cambridge Primary Review remarks that ‘Worryingly, primary science, which was one of the success stories of the National Curriculum’s first decade, has been squeezed by the national strategies, retaining its albeit reduced place only because it was tested at the end of key stage 2. Science is far too important to both a balanced education and the nation’s future to be allowed to decline in this way.’

Rose reflects current primary practice, and this is welcome. We are assured, too, that primary school science will continue to be assessed and monitored. Nobody wants the SATs back in the form in which they could undermine the whole Year 6 experience – and sometimes science teaching throughout the school. But the loss of core status (even second division core), and of external testing, puts primary science back a couple of decades. This is a blow for enthusiasts; but it will come as a relief to teachers who have always found science difficult and those who have little empathy with the subject.

I find no comfort in the response of the opinion-makers – the QCDA, the SLCs, SCORE, NAIGs and the ASE. It’s not that they don’t have the subject’s best interests at heart. But they seem to have spent too long in the company of the converted. Of course the primary school science enthusiasts will ‘make strong and relevant connections between subjects to ensure meaningful and inspiring learning and full coverage of the whole curriculum’ as the ASE’s ‘Science in the proposed new primary curriculum’. But will this kind of optimistic curriculum-speak be reflected in real schools by real teachers who teach other subjects brilliantly but have no burning desire to teach science?

And where are the skills of science? The ASE response says ‘there is no longer a separation of ‘how to do science’ and ‘things to learn about’. Investigative skills are integrated throughout the area of learning. Children will learn by doing.’ (4) Again, sounds wonderful. No argument there, then. And yet there is. The skills of primary education are not the same as the skills of practical science. The whole point about science is that it’s not a skill common to other curriculum areas. Uniquely, science subjects ideas to practical testing. No other curriculum area does that. If science is allowed to slide into the cosy world of overarching skills and soft topics, a whole generation will lose out on its rigor.

So what should the primary science mafia, the school curriculum leaders, the local authority advisers (where they exist) and the college lecturers who have carried the flag so far, be doing? The optimists are planning for stand-alone science lessons. The pessimists are banking on a change of government. It would be nice to think that the Rose Report would be dropped in the dustbin of history. But that’s unlikely. ‘On 30 April 2009, the government accepted the proposals of the Rose review of the primary curriculum. Since this nominally independent review adhered to a narrow government remit, refrained from questioning existing policy and for good measure was managed by DCSF, its adoption was a foregone conclusion’. Oh, and its brief did not include assessment.

So it’s down to the foot soldiers again, folks. If primary school science is not to be sidelined and finally ditched in the future, they need to ensure that its presence is maintained. And I suggest three pragmatic strategies in your school.

First, aim for a high profile. Some subjects are naturally showy. Science is not. Like PE, the best moments in science are practical and often go unrecorded. The products of science are not as engaging as those of the arty subjects. So go for presence. Record on film, on tape, in pictures. Fill display space. Constantly remind teachers that this is a school where good science happens – and that children gain hugely from it.

Next, push for curriculum time. If there are six topics in a year, make two of them science. Argue that the skills and content can’t possibly be covered if they are given a small corner of a topic on pirates or Vikings. Avoid the super-topics, like ‘water’. We’ve been there before, thirty years ago. They sound like they can be full of science, but most offer great opportunities to relegate investigations to the back burner.

Finally, fight for funding. Science resources are essential for this practical subject. Ensure that consumables are replaced and breakages managed. Go for the exciting and spectacular. The science cupboard should not be a place where magnets go to die; it should be filled with engaging and reliable resources that will excite and engage. You can get amazing stuff these days that I could only dream of when I started.

I see everything I have worked for going down the plug. But don’t worry about me. I’ve got plenty to do. Over the past quarter-century, I’ve been lucky enough to have been involved in writing the primary science resources used in many of our schools – books, television, discs, websites. Nowadays my commissions come from abroad. In many countries, they are waking up to the idea that their children need a sound grounding in science – just as we are forgetting it. Their children want colour and excitement; their teachers can learn from our experience.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting a number of my ex-primary pupils at a school reunion. It was a complete joy, but I especially treasure a comment from one young man, once an enthusiastic ten-year-old, now director of a national professional organisation and an adviser to government. ‘When I was in your class,’ he said, ‘I used to walk to school thinking: Great! Something exciting is going to happen today.’ Just make sure that something exciting happens in your school, too.

Related Science Articles

By ForestWander Nature Photography

McColloster (1996) suggests that these correlations reveal that science and religion can co-exist and help to build upon one another when one considers the context of facts and information (McColloster, 1996). Multiple discovered natural aspects are referenced throughout this paper from concrete sources which enhance the credibility of this research. Research sources include documentation from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) which provides a solid reference for a popular theory that, although not yet proven to be a law, certainly raises eyebrows when considering scriptures that have been read for hundreds or even thousands of years. This intriguing comparison is noted throughout this paper in both the Old and New Testament books of the Bible.

Science and religion are often areas of intense debate because of dogmatic unwavering views from either side of intellectual discussions. Although there is often disagreement between scholars and well educated theologians regarding the validity of scriptures and why humans exist, this research exposes the possibility that both the knowledge of science and the understanding of scripture can reason together. This paper will not explore such controversial areas of faith and belief, but rather provides a fact based comparative view of scientific research and Biblical writings.

Scientists and Religionists Can Agree

Many respected writers and well-read publications have made a comparison between science and scripture. In an article written for USA Today titled “Creation ‘Science’ vs. Religious Attitudes” McCollister writes (1996), “most scientists would agree with pro-evolution religionists that, when properly understood, religion and science enhance and complement each other, but only if the means, aims, methods, and ground rules of each are clearly understood.” (McColloster, 1996). Ms. McColloster is a freelance journalist and editor of Voices for Evolution, her articles have been published by notable publishers such as the National Center for Science Education in addition to USA today. McColloster’s peer reviewed articles and view points are recognized as an authoritative unbiased source dedicated to education and science.

When two areas of study provide information about similar subjects, it is logical to consider the material from both sources in a methodical comparison. Although science provides information as to how nature exists and functions, and the religious point of view is a theological answer as to why creation exists, valid scientific support can be recognized when the context of each source is considered. Ernest Lucas (2005) wrote in the journal of science and Christian belief that “there is no incompatibility between the biblically-based classical Christian doctrine of creation and modern science, provided one understands the different levels at which science and theology work and the limitations this puts on each of them.” (Lucas, 2005, p. 140). In consideration of the credibility of Dr. Lucas’ publications, The Faraday Institute (2009) wrote that “Ernest Lucas has a MA in Chemistry from Oxford University and a PhD in Chemistry from Kent.” He then studied theology at Oxford and was ordained a Baptist, later obtaining a PhD in Oriental studies from Liverpool. “Lucas was Associate Director of the Institute for Contemporary Christianity in London before moving to Bristol Baptist College, where he is Vice-Principal and Tutor in Biblical Studies.” (The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, 2009). Ernest’s diverse background in science and religion provides an expert reference from both an educated scientific and religious point of view.

The levels of information and the methods by which scientific and Biblical knowledge is presented may often seem difficult to comprehend. In order to understand the rationalization for science and scripture coinciding together, it is necessary to begin with some questions.

1. Are there documented scientific facts of nature that support scriptural references to “The Beginning” in the Bible?

2. Is there specific scientific knowledge of natural characteristics that are evident in the Bible regarding the areas of matter, time, the weather, the Earth’s geology and human biology?

Science is a very diverse and in depth area of study and it would be seemingly impossible to cover every branch of research. As well, classic Biblical scriptures, some written hundreds of years ago, and others written thousands of years ago, all in different languages, make the Bible alone a vast area of study. In order to address this subject in a time efficient manner this research documents four basic areas of study. Research has revealed that scientific evidence supports Biblical accounts of the natural characteristics relative to the composition of the universe, the nature of time, the Earth, and human biology.

The Beginning: The Big Bang Theory Supports
the Beginning as Written in the Bible

The first area of research to address will appropriately be “the beginning” of the universe and time itself. As each day passes the progression of time is evident all around, and the questions of when everything began, or has everything simply existed, has been a puzzle that scientists have researched for hundreds of years. Until recently there was only speculation and belief about a beginning of the universe.

In 2003 NASA revealed an amazing discovery about the beginning of the universe. Dan Vergano (2003) wrote in an article for USA Today titled “NASA peers back to the beginning of the universe”. In this article NASA is noted for strengthening the Big Bang theory with a one hundred fifty million dollar project and Charles Bennett of NASA’sGoddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. is quoted stating “Astrophysicists will no longer have the freedom to invent whatever theory they want about the universe,” Bennett says, “We’ve ruled out a lot of the easy explanations.” (Vergano, 2003, para. 17). NASA is one of the world’s most recognized authorities on scientific exploration into the unknown. When comparing the science of a beginning to the Biblical account of a beginning, as written in Genesis “In the beginning” (Genesis 1:1 KJV), it is easy to understand that there is a complementary correlation between the two areas of study. Scientific theory clearly supports the fact that there was a beginning of time and matter.

When considering the theory of the Big Bang it is logical that in the progression of time and natural order that the Earth itself would begin to form. (The theory about how fast the formation of the Earth took place is not addressed in this research, as this would incorporate areas of faith and belief. The focus for this research is directly related to facts and science.)

Once the Earth was formed it is safe to consider that an atmosphere and water developed and that certain areas of the Earth were covered in water and other areas were exposed as dry land. The scientific theory for a mass continent called Pangaea supports the distinct likelihood that a super continent existed. This one mass of land is theorized to have drifted apart according to the pre-existing theory of Continental Drift. However, in the past 30 years continental drift has been explained through the forces of plate tectonics which explain how the plates of the Earth’s surface move (Kious, Tilling, 1996).

The Beginning: The Theory of Pangea Supports the
Formation of Land on the Earth in the Bible

A very interesting correlation is able to be seen between the Biblical reference of the formation of a super continent and the supporting scientific evidence. As the scripture states in the book of Genesis “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters” (Genesis 1:6). In addition to this scripture we see also another scripture written which states “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear” (Genesis 1:9). In these scriptures we see a reference to a firmament and that the waters are gathered together into one place. This scriptural reference clearly is supported by the scientific theory of a single land mass and a single body of water.

The Beginning: Science States the Earth is Suspended
by Gravity as Written in the Bible

The forces of nature which formed the Earth are not only at work on the surface of the Earth, but the very planet itself is suspended by gravity, floating in the midst of space held by natural forces which are yet to be completely understood. According to the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Information Programs or IIP (2008) “in 1972, astronauts on board Apollo 17 captured the first full view of Earth suspended in space, exposed in full sunlight” (U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Information Programs, 2008). This wonderful picture clearly shows the Earth suspended in space as has been known and recognized for hundreds of years. This scientific evidence supports the Biblical reference to the gravitational forces of “nothing” suspending the Earth in the book of Job (Job 26:7). It is quite interesting that this scientific evidence supports scriptures which clearly indicate that the Earth is suspended by forces which are not seen even with today’s modern advances in technology.

The Beginning: Gravitational Forces Affect
Celestial Objects in the Bible

The gravitational forces suspending the earth in the picture taken by the Apollo 17 astronauts affect all celestial bodies throughout the universe. The scientific documentation of planetary gravitational forces is noted in the writings of astrophysicists. In a book titled “A Year in the Life of the Universe: A Seasonal Guide to Viewing the Cosmos”, the authors write about the gravitationally bound Pleiades star cluster. Gendler & Ferris (2006) state that “the Pleiades will probably travel through space as a bound cluster for another 250 million years” (Gendler, Ferris, 2006). These stars are able to be seen by the unaided eye. In the ancient Biblical time of Job the forces of gravity of the star constellation was used in a rhetorical question. The Bible states that God asks Job, “Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?” (Job 38:31). It is obvious that binding the influences is referring to the gravitational forces which hold the stars together. The fact that the stars are bound together by gravity is a documented scientific fact which supports the natural occurrence of gravity documented in the Bible.

Relevant scientific research supports the facts which have been mentioned so far, and this documented research is shown to compliment and correlate with scripture which address very similar areas of science and knowledge. Scientific support for the beginning of time and matter are not the only occurrences which have been noted in research. Specific examples of natural facts in the areas regarding the end of matter, time zones, weather, and geology are also noted and provide further affirmation which anchors the fact that science and scripture can and do complement each other in many relevant fields of study.

The Nature of Matter: The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Supports the Destiny of the Universe in the Bible

Mankind has theorized and speculated about the end of the world and the universe as long as documented history can record. This question has fascinated everyone from common men and women to distinguished scholars. As science has progressed, the understanding of matter and the makeup of matter has advanced as well. When a scientific theory is tested over and over again, it is proven to be law; a scientific law typically does not change. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law which addresses the statistics of the order of molecules which make up matter. In his paper titled “Things Fall Apart: An Introduction to Entropy”, Gary Felder (2001) uses the example of a dandelion and spores. The statistical probability of dandelion spores being blown from the stem is much more likely than the dandelion spores re-attaching themselves to the stem from which they grew (Felder, 2001). This is an example of the statistical law of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Research and statistics show that in every area of matter which includes everything on the Earth, the Earth itself and the entire universe is gradually falling apart through the progression of time. Although you cannot see the hands on a clock move they are still moving and this is simply how the Earth is breaking down as time progresses.

The second law of thermodynamics supports scriptures that were written in the Bible concerning the end of all creation. In the book of Psalms the scripture states “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment;” (Psalm 102:25, 26). In this scripture we see the words “perish” and “wax old” used describing the Earth itself and the heavens describing the universe and stars. Dr. Felder (2001) describes the end of all matter in the following statements “So far as we know entropy will continue increasing until someday the universe is filled with nothing but weak, uniform radiation.” He also states that “this scenario, known as “the heat death of the universe,” referencing that there will be a period when all matter experiences this ultimate progression of scientific law (Felder, 2001). Again this research supports additional scriptures one of which reads “the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” (2 Peter 3:10).

The Nature of Time: The Science of Day and Night
During one Time Period Supports Scripture

Although the progression of entropy may be very slow in the short life spans that humans live, the twenty four hour cycle of night and day is evident. Modern science and the ability to travel great distances has allowed people to go from time zone to time zone in a matter of hours. The Lunar and Planetary Institute (2004) explains how the Earth experiences this cycle because of the rotation of the Earth on its axis. It is interesting to note that New Testament scripture is supported by this ever occurring fact of science. In the book of Saint Luke, Jesus makes a statement about people sleeping in a bed and others working in a field; inferring that it will be night one place and day in another when He returns (Luke 17:34-36). This inference makes an interesting correlation between the science of time zones and scripture.

The Nature Weather: The Science of Jet Streams
Supports Biblical Scripture

In 1920 a discovery was made which drastically affected the study of weather patterns and air travel in modern avionics. This discovery is thought to have been made by meteorologist named Wasaburo Ooishi. His discovery was made possible by the use of a weather balloon which revealed the pattern of wind known today as jet streams (Sapojnikova, 2010), The air currents which travel at very high altitudes (some as high as 52,000 feet) help to increase the ground speed of jet airliners thus saving fuel and time. The jet streams are today well known facts of science that determine many factors of the Earths changing weather. Amazingly the circuits of the wind are noted in scripture which was written by the very wise King Solomon. In the book of Ecclesiastes it is written that “The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.” (Ecclesiastes 1:6). It is well known science that supports the fact that wind currents move toward different southern, northern and other points on the map, it is also known that these powerful wind currents whirl about and around the Earth returning to the same place as they circle the planet.

The Earth’s Geology: Oceanic Geological Science
Supports Biblical References

From the heights of the clouds to the very depths of the sea, sciences supporting biblical scriptures are recognized in nearly every area of study. A question was posed to Job by God saying “Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?” (Job 38:16). From a theological perspective this was asked of Job in order for Job to realize his limited ability, to know or be able to do as much as God, even though Job was a good man. But from a scientific perspective research has shown that scientific discoveries were made in 1977 that support the science of this scripture. Watson (1999) from the U.S. Geological Survey writes that in 1977 “scientists discovered hot springs at a depth of 2.5 km, on the Galapagos Rift” (Watson, 1999). Although there had been pre-existing theories about these springs since the 1970′s they had not been captured by a camera.

So far scientific research has supported the creation of time and the universe; as well as theories, facts and laws that have correlated with the principles of gravity affecting the Earth itself and stars. In addition research has shown specific examples of the destiny of useful matter, the affirmation of time zones, jet streams and oceanic springs. All of these areas of science specifically focus on the Earth and other natural surroundings. It is therefore necessary to explore the biological science and the interrelation of biblical scripture regarding the human body itself.

Human Biology: Recent Scientific Theories Support
the Account of a Type of Adam in the Bible

Recently DNA research has revealed an interesting theory regarding the early origins of mankind. This DNA research has led to the close consideration that early mankind developed from one man or one small group of people. In a National Geographic article Hillary Mayell (2003) writes “geneticist Spencer Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago.” (Hillary, 2003). Albeit Dr. Wells theory is still a theory which requires much more additional research in order to become fact, this modern discovery reveals an amazing basic support for the oldest Biblical accounts for mankind’s origin. As stated in the beginning of the book of Genesis, God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and then in the New Testament a scripture describes “The first man Adam was made a living soul” (1 Corinthians 15:45). Still research continues to reveal if not only an inference, a direct resemblance to this carefully studied theory of the origin of mankind.

Human Biology: Science Supports an Admonishment
to Immoral Sexual Behavior in the Bible

The creation and growth of man will likely always be a subject of intense study that may never be completely understood. However, one area of research that has grown to epidemic proportions in modern science and medical study is the analysis of sexually transmitted diseases. In the British Medical Journal an article written by Ebrahim, McKenna & Marks (2005) provides statistics which expose that in 1990 thirty thousand deaths were attributed to sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is not only attributed to death but to other detrimental consequences as stated in the article “Sexual behaviour leads to a variety of harmful consequences, such as unintended pregnancy, social stigma, infections, and chronic psychological or pathological sequelae.” (Ebrahim, McKenna & Marks, 2005). Clearly the medical evidence shown throughout modern history underscores the fact that immoral or unrestrained sexual behavior is detrimental to the human body. Biblical scriptures are clearly supported by this fact which is identified by the Apostle Paul as he admonishes the church of Corinth. The New Testament scripture declares “he that commiteth fornication sinneth against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18). Fornication is the practice of immoral sexual activity outside of wedlock. It is well known and documented that sexual promiscuity leads to many of the diseases that modern day society faces in monumental proportions.

Conclusion

In light of the research presented in this paper it is evident that science supports Biblical scriptures and in return that Biblical scriptures reference documented scientific facts of nature. These written references affirm the many areas of study in which science references subjects that have been written and discussed in scriptures for hundreds of years. The scientific facts have been presented in these various areas, subsequent scriptures are then documented which are obviously supported by modern evidence.

Although much discussion and many debates have taken place about the validity of scripture in the context of known scientific facts, many respected scholars such as those from the Institute for Creation Research (2010) agree that there are valid and considerable comparisons in the studies of both. When the application of science and scripture are properly addressed accounting for the time period in which they were documented, the authors of the content, and the method in how they both are compared, it becomes apparent how these areas of study compliment one another.

The focus and research of this paper is to establish the fact that modern science supports many Biblical scriptures. One must realize the limitations of the compatibility of science and scripture, yet at the same time research clearly presents facts. In this research science supports a theory of a beginning in time and space, and then the scripture is presented which represents the beginning of time and space. The scientific evidence for the forces and laws of gravity are presented, subsequently the scriptural references are recorded which reference these areas. Research presents the second law of thermodynamics and then similar accounts of the Biblical record for the end of all matter are exhibited. Not only is scientific evidence presented which clarifies support for the Earth, space and time but research also supports the biology of the human body itself.

Many references throughout the various fields of science are written about in the Biblical scriptures, several of which are not mentioned in this document. In the clear viewpoint of this research it is logical to ascertain that modern scientific studies document references of the natural characteristics written in the Bible regarding the composition of the universe, the nature of time, the Earth, and human biology.