The Basis for True Science

WHAT IS SCIENCE? How do we determine if it leads to truth? Whose truth does it represent? Stripped down, science essentially means “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” Is true science an elitist or Gnostic pursuit? In other words, can it be understood by only a handful of people. How do we do science? Although the average person will never master science to any degree,  there is a desperate need for non-technical arguments that stand on their own merits, independent of any technical work, and that are at least somewhat comprehensible.

It is important to note that all humans are “scientists” to some degree. In fact, scientific study encompasses more than we realize on the surface—it touches on the philosophical, biological, social, and cultural aspects of life as well. Without realizing it, throughout the day we tend to carefully observe and analyze many aspects of the physical universe. We constantly make “mental notes” of what we observe, and we use those notes to build a conceptual model (or worldview) of how it all works. Each of us, regardless of our mental capacity, constantly acquires and analyzes data in the pursuit of meaning and cause-and-effect.

Stephen Hawking established two sets of questions to be considered when applying science to life and its “big questions.” The first batch of queries focuses on the “hows” of existence:

  • How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?
  • How does the universe behave?
  • What is the nature of reality?
  • Where did this all come from?
  • Did the universe need a creator?

Hawking’s second set of questions relates to the “whys” of existence:

  • Why is there something rather than nothing?
  • Why do we exist?
  • Why this particular set of scientific laws and not some other?

Neil deGrasse Tyson says—

[Science] is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules: test ideas by experiment and observation; build on those ideas that pass the test; reject the ones that fail; follow the evidence wherever it leads; and question everything. Accept these terms and the cosmos is yours.

The “Religion” of Science

Unfortunately, many empiricists believe science and religion are locked in a bitter and contentious war for our minds. Stephen Weinberg, awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, said, “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion. Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact by our greatest contribution to civilisation [sic].” It has been argued that religion cannot cure disease; it cannot usefully explain where humans came from, the origin of life, or how the universe came to be; it is said to be unable to explain volcanoes, earthquakes, thunderstorms, hurricanes, epidemics, allergies, birth defects, diseases, and so on. Scientists dogmatically claim that religion cannot usefully explain one single thing. Of course, there is no basis for a categorical denial of religion’s usefulness in explaining the physical realm.

Consider the following position:

Science is an unstoppable force for human development that will deliver answers to our many questions about the universe, and solve many, if not all, of our human problems: disease, energy, pollution, poverty. At some stage in the future, science will be able to explain everything, and answer all our needs.

It would seem the above is a very narrow viewpoint. I suggest the following as a more accurate and equitable concept: (1) religion is based on faith; (2) science is based on faith; (3) both religion and science give us knowledge of the unseen world; (4) all knowledge of the unseen world must be based on faith; therefore (5) science is a religion.

To a great extent, today’s culture holds the dramatically one-dimensional opinion that what we see is all there is and, accordingly, nature is all we need to explain everything. Charles Colson, in his book How Now Shall We Live? describes this as the philosophy of naturalism. We can define naturalism as the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural, metaphysical, or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. Natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe; the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws and nothing else. Philosophical naturalism is a special instance of the wider concept of philosophy, taking the subject matter and method of philosophy to be continuous with the subject matter and method of other disciplines, especially the natural sciences.

Naturalism is essentially synonymous with humanism. Of course, both schools of thought exclude the supernatural by definition. Interestingly, naturalism claims to answer the how and the why of existence, holding itself as the cultural authority to rule on what is, why it is, and what it means. It can be considered an ism because it lives as a tendency, a stance, a frame of mind, a sequence of mental habits and reflexes. Naturalist philosophers believe no other intellectual enterprise—except pure mathematics—has such reliable and effective means for defining and explaining the universe. Typically, and to the contrary, making sense of human life is the principal business of organized religion. Methodological naturalism is a subset of naturalism, involving a cognitive approach to reality that ignores the metaphysical realm.

Naturalistic scientists try to give the impression that they are fair-minded and objective, thereby hinting that it is “religious” people who are subjective and biased in favor of their personal beliefs. This is basically a ruse; naturalism is as much a philosophy, a worldview, a personal belief system, as any religion. Of course, to claim that observable nature is all there is or ever will be is particularly narrow. This reminds me of Carl Sagan’s trademark statement (at the beginning of his PBS series Cosmos), “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” This is remarkably similar to the Christian liturgical recitation, “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.” I make this comparison merely to show the “religiosity” of naturalism.

The Big Bang theory seems to destroy naturalism, for the naturalist claims that reality is an unbroken sequence of cause-and-effect which can be traced back endlessly. From a purely scientific vantage point, however, the Big Bang suggests a sudden discontinuity in the chain of events. By its very definition, science can trace events back in time only to a certain point—the moment of an originating explosion. It is at this point in time that science reaches an abrupt break; an absolute time barrier. This concept presented Einstein with a dilemma which he wrestled with. He kept tweaking his equations in hopes of avoiding the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. Astronomer Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, believed science had reached its limit, adding it would never be possible to discover whether the “agent of creation” was the God of the Bible or some familiar force of physics. Yet the laws of physics contradict the concept of something from nothing. Matter cannot create itself.

Unfortunately, scientists and educators ignore the perplexing philosophical and religious implications of the Big Bang. In defense of their passing the buck, they say We only deal with science. Discussion of the ultimate cause behind the Big Bang is dismissed as philosophy. Some scientists attempt to sidestep the physics and mathematical implications of the Big Bang and simply say that matter is eternal after all. Of course, they provide no logical or scientific basis for this claim. Carl Sagan tried to bury this ultimate puzzle in a series of events wherein the universe has been expanding and contracting over an infinite amount of time. Sagan’s speculation runs up against the basic laws of physics. Even an oscillating universe would use up the available energy in each cycle, and it would eventually run down. The second law of thermodynamics, the law of decay, negates the notion of an eternal universe.

We should not oppose science with religion; we should oppose bad science with better science!

The Science of Religion

What does observation and induction have to do with discovering the existence of God? Everything! In 1927, the expanding of the universe was observed by astronomer Edwin Hubble. Looking through a 100-inch telescope at California’s Mount Wilson Observatory, Hubble discovered a “red shift” in the light from every observable galaxy, which meant that those galaxies were moving away from us. This was a direct confirmation of General Relativity—the universe appears to be expanding from a single point of origin in the distant past. Einstein reviewed this data and decided he could no longer support the idea of an eternal physical universe. He described the cosmological constant as “the greatest blunder of my life.” Einstein believed God was pantheistic (God is the universe). In any event, he thought perhaps his theory of General Relativity was strong evidence for a theistic God.

If the universe had a beginning, then the universe had a cause. This is the cosmological argument of creation. In logical form, the argument states:

  1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. This is the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Francis Bacon (the father of modern science) believed true knowledge is knowledge by causes. David Hume, a skeptic relative to God, could not deny the Law of Causality. He eventually stated, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition that something could arise without a cause.” There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Since a cause cannot come after its effect, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang.
  2. The universe had a beginning. If the universe did not have a beginning then no cause was needed. However, science and Christian theology admit the world began abruptly in violation of the laws of science.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. If the universe had a beginning, in other words if it is not eternal, then there must be an underlying cause. Robert Jastrow said, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world… the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

Faith—when it is truly faith rather than a mere intellectual assent to some proposition or other—will always seek to enter into a fuller and deeper knowledge and understanding of that which matters most to it. Trevor Hart, in Faith Thinking: The Dynamics of Christian Theology, says faith is concerned with what he calls the internal coherence of its own story or gospel. This involves the ability of educators in a subject to connect and align available resources to carry out the advancement of its theory, engage in collective learning, and use that learning to provide richer educational opportunity for those who continue the study of said theory.

Faith, by its very definition, is a critical reflection of knowledge and not a mere reiteration of some established body of truths. If our intention is genuinely to know the truth, and to allow that truth to shape our thinking and our speaking, then we must approach faith (or, if you prefer, religion) from an interrogative and outward-looking vantage point rather than with a dogmatic or individualistic bend. There is an unfortunate dogmatic warfare between science and Christianity that, if allowed to fester, blocks the science of Christianity from coming to the surface. Zoologist and New Atheist Richard Dawkins insists that all scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, but myths and faiths are not. He likens belief in God to belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or fairies and elves.

J.P. Moreland, a modern-day philosopher from Biola University, believes Christianity is a matter of knowledge, which is supported by logical reasoning and empirical evidence. Faith is not mere emotion or opinion. Personally, I believe all truth is God’s truth. Whatever science proves, it will not contradict the Word of God. The Christian faith is a source of much original knowledge (through its many scientists) that served as a unifying vision, leading to advancement of Western civilization, education, and science. Today, that information (especially its origin) has been pushed indoors as part of a private belief that supposedly has no place in public forums. The problem is not with science, as most of what we consider to be fundamental scientific principles today were established by Bible-believing Christians. The key issue is the philosophical stance of scientism; one of the three major planks of naturalism, the other two being determinism and materialism.

Faith in Something!

Why should we consider belief in spontaneous creation (something from nothing), Darwinism, mutations leading to “new” species, and the Big Bang (as it is taught in public school) to be belief by faith? Because these “theories” go beyond the reach of scientific method. There is a huge difference between “historical” science and that which can be proved through experimental methods. Accordingly, when a “scientist” speaks of the origin of life or the universe, he or she is postulating something that is outside the scope of scientific theory. Unfortunately, many evolutionists refuse to admit that their idea regarding the origin of life and matter is a faith-based system. They argue that science will some day prove their theory. They base this on their comment that we only know part of reality at present, but science will provide all answers some time in the future.

I propose that the Christian and the atheist both live by faith. Each has his or her way of thinking, which is essentially their worldview. It is what they believe about life. Some scientists hold the view that matter and energy are eternal. They believe in a state of equilibrium before our ever-expanding universe burst forth from a very hot, very dense singularity. Of course, there is a contradiction within that very core belief: a state of harmony or equilibrium ceased to be so, bursting forth in a chaotic expression of energy and matter, without intervention. This “theory” has never been proven, yet it is being taught in our public schools as though it is true beyond doubt—that the only explanation for the origin of life is the evolution of “molecules to man.”

If everything was in a “neutral” state of equilibrium before the Big Bang, what made the Big Bang explode? If you believe in the Big Bang from the standpoint of modern science—eternal matter and energy sprang forth from an infinitely dense speck of matter—then you are postulating that the powerful inward pull of gravity somehow overcame its own force and went BANG! Moreover, you believe this tremendously huge and powerful explosion slowed down just enough for every molecule and every universe (great and small) to begin rotating in extremely precise orbits. Then, somehow, these random molecules, created from a random explosion billions of years ago, assembled themselves into water, air, carbon, fiber, enzymes, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, organisms, populations, communities, ecosystems, and so on.

Then there is the matter of biological information. High school teachers never tell their students that the evolutionary model of one cell to man is based on unproven assumptions. Historical science is built exclusively on assumptions. Many necessary steps are taken for granted in the “molecules to man” model. Evolution assumes that non-living chemicals gave rise to the first “living” cell which, in turn, randomly evolved into more complex forms. Of course, this theory is not scientifically testable or experimentally verifiable.

G.A. Jerkut, an evolutionist, admitted to the following assumptions of evolution:

  1. Non-living things gave rise to living material; spontaneous generation occurred;
  2. Spontaneous generation occurred only once;
  3. Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all genetically related;
  4. Protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms);
  5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated;
  6. Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates;
  7. Within vertebrates, fish gave rise to amphibia, amphibia to reptiles, reptiles to birds, and birds to mammals.

However, no cell is simple. For example, bacterium can synthesize some 3,000 to 6,000 compounds at a rate of about 1 million reactions per second. Cells of bacteria and blue-green algae contain just a single molecule of DNA, and they lack well-defined internal structures, such as a nucleus, chromosomes, and internal membranes. They lack the innate capacity to morph into anything else. This is true because they contain information specific to them, and such information cannot rewrite itself, becoming a completely different species. What kind of information does DNA contain? What kind of information must origin-of-life researchers explain the origin of? DNA contains specific information that deepens the mystery surrounding life.

DNA is the specific “code” of life itself. It is a rather dubious claim to state that genetic information came from nothing; that it “wrote” itself. Moreover, information specific to the second definition equals an arrangement or string of characters that accomplishes a particular outcome or performs a function of communication. This is no more possible than the idea that a piece of computer hardware (my laptop, for example) can write code. Moreover, computer software is, by its very definition, the compilation of zeros and ones in a “code” or “language” that tells the hardware what to do. Every single aspect of what I’m doing right now, from the appearance of each distinct letter on this screen to the bold or italic command, to the period at the end of this sentence. Code cannot write itself; it requires a programmer.

Here’s something to ponder. It’s been argued by atheists that if the universe needed a programmer (an intelligent designer), then that intelligent being needed a cause or creating force. This claim misconstrues the argument. Theists say everything that begins to exist needs a cause. The first premise of creationism does not say everything needs a cause. Since God did not begin to exist, He does not need a cause. Atheists also commit the category fallacy in which things from one category are applied to another. Granted, we can debate What caused God for decades, but such arguments are not mere scientific debates; they are disagreements between worldviews. Remarkably, even critics of creationism recognize that the beginning of the universe required something that was not itself caused. Atheists simply state that the laws of physics just exist, period

Concluding Remarks

It is obvious that Darwinism, secularism, and naturalism are prevalent in academia today. It is not necessarily a bad thing to discuss these “theories.” The harm comes when an instructor teaches them as scientific fact, ignoring any alternative theory such as intelligent design. They decide for themselves that the biblical account of creation is entirely unscientific. They fail to distinguish between theory, historical science, and provable science. Instead, they teach evolution in the same manner that they teach mathematical formulae, gravity, friction, thermodynamics, chemistry, and genetics. In fact, they base everything in the universe on the unproven assumption that something came from nothing. They assume that naturalism can account for the origin, organization, development, and fine-tuning of the universe and everything in it regardless of the mathematical impossibility of life beginning without an intelligent designer. (See my blog article Signature in the Cell: The Definition of Life.) 

Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of variation between species. Species—groups of similar organisms within a genus—are designated by biochemical and other phenotypic criteria and by DNA relatedness, based on their overall genetic similarity. You may recall from ninth-grade biology class that living organisms (whether animal or plant, zebra or zucchini) are divided into seven levels: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. The arguments presented by today’s New Atheists fly in the face of logic and probability. The laws of physics, when applied uniformly and fairly, indicate that the universe could not have created itself. Nor could the information of biology write itself.

It is worth stating that people have personal rather than evidential reasons for rejecting God. The assumption that all knowledge must be scientifically provable isn’t scientifically provable. It’s a philosophical claim. People who deny the existence of God want to run their own lives, and they don’t want anyone to interfere with the way they’re living. They want to be in control of everything they do, and they know that if they were to believe in God, they’d have to change their lifestyle. Instead of living by their own list of what’s right and wrong, they’d have to take seriously God’s moral standards.

Paul said in Romans 8:7, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot” (RSV). Why, then, should we allow our children to be taught unproven theories by secularists who refuse to put aside their presuppositions, misconceptions, biases, and personal worldview?

Are Science and Christianity at Odds?

Descent of the Modernists.png

This question has been the fuel for countless discussions, arguments, and debates for centuries. I spend several hours a week viewing YouTube documentaries on apologetics, postmodernism, Israeli-Palestinian relations, Islam, creationism, evolution, and atheism. Having undertaken a systematic study of worldviews, I’m reminded that nearly no one simply creates his or her own worldview. We inherit a great deal of our worldview from our parents, primary caregivers, school, and church. I must always keep my own worldview in mind—including biases, prejudices, presuppositions, and misconceptions. This is critical. Not only do we interpret information according to our worldview, it is our worldview that filters what we see or what we deem relevant.

“The conflict between religion and science is unavoidable. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science” (Sam Harris).

ORIGINS OF A CONFLICT

Science-fish

Science is at war with religion. This conflict can be traced back to the Dark Ages during which the church quite vigorously forced its dogma and control on church members. Anyone who questioned church authority was summarily punished. Some of science’s forefathers—Galileo, Copernicus, and Bruno—were persecuted. What we miss, however, if we hold this “abridged” history of science versus religion are the numerous examples of Christianity and science getting along just fine, answering the many questions we have about us, our planet, and our universe.

If we refuse to have at least an open mind about a different paradigm or worldview, we’ll never have the opportunity to think for ourselves. Education is extremely important, but just how important is public education? Public schools teach that science and education are incompatible. Period. This wild and unverified conclusion is reckless. Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) said, “All attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule.” Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, wrote, “I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise… It subverts science and saps the intellect.”

Many believe science and Christianity are at odds, but the opposite is actually true. There is no underlying conflict between Christianity (currently the world’s largest religion at 2.4 billion believers) and science. Naturally, this does not mean that religious antagonism to science does not exist. Believers often take on science with a vengeance. But science history shows that such claims of antagonism are often exaggerated or unsubstantiated. Let’s remember that science (as a sustained and organized movement) emerged in Christian Europe. During the sixteenth century, people from every culture studied the natural world, and yet modern science appeared first in Europe among a civilization primarily shaped by the Judeo-Christian worldview. To be blunt, Christianity provided the philosophical foundation and spiritual motivation for doing science. The Christian worldview—with its insistence on the orderliness of the universe, its emphasis on human reason, and its teaching that God is glorified as we seek to understand His creation—laid the foundation for the modern scientific revolution.

MOST SCIENTIFIC PIONEERS BELIEVED IN GOD

Most scientific pioneers were theists, including prominent figures such as Copernicus, Newton, Pascal, Kepler, Pasteur, and Planck. Many of these individuals intently pursued science because of their belief in the Christian God. Francis Bacon believed the natural world was full of mysteries that God means for us to explore. This is often referred to as God’s general revelation. Kepler wrote, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” Newton believed his scientific discoveries offered convincing evidence for the existence and creativity of God. He said, “This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

hubble-ultraviolet-survey-2

This argument is lost on atheists like Christopher Hitchens, who discounts the religious convictions of these scientific giants. He said belief in God was the only option for a scientist at that time in history. But this puts Hitchens in a pickle. If religious believers get no credit for their positive contributions to society (e.g., shaping modern science) simply because “everyone was religious,” then why should their mistakes be used to discredit them? This is truly a double-standard. To make the case that religion “poisons everything,” Hitchens has to ignore much evidence to the contrary. Dawkins accepts that some early scientific pioneers may have been Christians, but he believes Christian scientists today are a rarity. He said, “Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find throughout the twentieth century.”

NATURALISM VERSUS THEISM

Naturalism is a scientifically oriented worldview that completely denies the existence of God and the soul. Rather, it holds that everything arises from natural properties and causes; supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. The term seems to have no precise meaning today. Different philosophers over the centuries have proffered myriad definitions. But naturalists have always attempted to align philosophy more closely with science. Adherents to this philosophy assert that natural laws are, well, natural—that they govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe all on their own without input from a Creator or Intelligent Designer.

Theism holds that there is a personal creator and sustainer of the universe who is omnipotent, omniscient, essentially good, omnipresent, and eternal. Christianity believes that the Creator has revealed Himself to humankind in the person of Jesus Christ, a member of the trinity of God, who was resurrected from the dead in confirmation of His deity. Christians believe in the supernatural world, including the One True God, spirit, angels, and miracles. Here’s the deal! Naturalism and theism are at odds with each other, not science and Christianity. Naturalism is intrinsically atheistic because it sees nothing outside of the natural or physical world.

einstein

Have you found yourself asking, Why does the natural world make any sense to begin with? Albert Einstein once remarked that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. Einstein understood a basic truth about science—it relies upon certain philosophical assumptions about the natural world. These assumptions include the existence of an external world that is orderly and rational, and the trustworthiness  of our minds to grasp that world. Science cannot proceed apart from these assumptions, even though they cannot be independently proven. Oxford professor John C. Lennox makes a provocative statement: “At the heart of all science lies the conviction that the universe is orderly.” Without this deep conviction science would not be possible.

In order to further expound on the complexity of explaining the universe, take a look at the following excerpt from Stephen Hawking’s seminal book A Brief History of Time?

When most people believed in an essentially static and unchanging universe, the question of whether or not it had a beginning was really one of metaphysics or theology. One could account for what was observed equally well on the theory that the universe had existed forever or on the theory that it was set in motion at some finite time in such a manner as to look as though it had existed forever. But in 1929, Edwin Hubble made the landmark observation that wherever you look, distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from us. In other words, the universe is expanding. This means that at earlier times objects would have been closer together. In fact, it seemed that there was a time, about ten or twenty thousand million years ago, when they were all at exactly the same place and when, therefore, the density of the universe was infinite. This discovery finally brought the question of the beginning of the universe into the realm of science.

According to British physicist, broadcaster, and educator Paul Davies, the intelligibility of the universe points toward a rational foundation. He says science is based on the assumption that the universe is thoroughly rational and logical at all levels. Every single level! Atheists claim that the laws of nature exist without any basis in reason and that the universe is ultimately absurd. As a scientist, Davies said he found this position hard to accept. He said, “There must be an unchanging rational ground in which the logical, orderly nature of the universe is rooted.”

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This brings us full-circle. It’s not Christianity that is at odds with science—it’s naturalism. Problem is, people like Richard Dawkins believe there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism. However, the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and a belief in God. It’s not simply that the order of the universe fits better with God in it. There is a much deeper link. An ordered, rational, logical universe is what we would expect from a God who created us in His image. Forming true beliefs about the world is one way we reflect the image imprinted in us by God.

Science depends on the assumption that the world is orderly and that our minds can access this reality. Even the most secular scientists presume that nature operates in a law-like fashion. This conviction  is best explained by the pioneers of the scientific revolution, who believed the cosmos is orderly because it was designed by the rational Creator of the universe who desires for us, as beings made in His image, to understand, enjoy, and explore His creation.

 

 

The Genesis Problem: The Methodological Atheism of Science

“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science. There is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.”
– Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

YOU DECIDE TO SIT DOWN and examine science in order to come to a better understanding of the empirical world around you. This seems to be a sound proposition, yet there is a problem. The issue is not with modern science itself, but rather with a faulty view of science: The idea that science is a complete framework for understanding man and the universe, and that unscientific claims should be automatically rejected. Scientists naturally like to think of themselves as reasonable people, ready to follow the path of evidence no matter where it takes them. Carl Sagan’s boast is typical in this regard: “At the heart of science is … an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counter-intuitive.” Of course, we must also remember that virtually everyone comes to a subject matter already in possession of a particular bias or worldview. That’s fine. What is not okay is when an individual denies his or her biases or presuppositions, or, worse yet, is dishonest about them when presenting their findings.

Stephen Hawking explains why a large number of theorists were attracted to the steady state theory of the origin of the universe. Steady state theory posits that the universe is always expanding, but it is maintaining a constant average density, with matter being constantly created to form new stars and galaxies at the same rate that old ones become unobservable as a consequence of their increasing distance and velocity of receding. He said, “There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang … Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” For some time Hawking had given the impression that he is neither a strong believer nor disbeliever in a higher power, but in 2014 he told a symposium, “Before we understood science, it was natural to believe that God created the universe, but now science offers a more convincing explanation.” This is decidedly quite a reversal of opinion.

Astronomer and physicist Lee Smolin complained, “Must all of our scientific understanding of the world really come down to a [seemingly] mythological story in which nothing exists … save some disembodied intelligence, who, desiring to start a world, chooses the initial conditions and then wills matter into being?” Man must ultimately confront nature in order to develop a sense of who he is within nature itself. Indeed, by default one’s worldview will have an impact on how one defines nature. For example, Western societies do not generally confront nature with the same sense of respect. For us, the physical realm of “not man” is indifferent to man. In the Western Hemisphere, we believe nature exists for man to harness for his own purposes. We do not conform to the universe; rather, we seek to conform the universe to us and our needs. Phillips, Brown & Stonestreet. (2008) How we confront and interpret nature has a direct impact on understanding our place in it.

Today all evidence of God is a priori rejected by science. Even empirical evidence of the kind normally admissible in science is refused a hearing. It doesn’t matter how strong or reliable the evidence is, scientists acting in their professional capacity are obliged to ignore it. If you know anything about the history of the church, all of this may seem surprising, in view of how science developed out of the theological premises and institutions of Christianity. Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle, and others all saw a deep compatibility between science and religion. All believed in God. Today, however, scientists typically admit there is a specific orderliness to the universe and nature, but refuse to consider the source of that orderliness. Science has front-men like Stephen Hawking to attempt to convince everyone that the laws of physics and the language of genetics came from nothing.

Today’s atheists, Dawkins and the others, seem naively to believe they are the apostles of reason who are merely following the evidence. It is important to note that modern science seems to be based on an unwavering alliance to naturalism and materialism. Naturalism is the doctrine that nature is all there is. It is a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes. Supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. Materialism is the belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Material reality is the only reality. Of course these philosophical doctrines – naturalism and materialism – have never been proven. In fact, they cannot be proven because it is impossible to demonstrate that immaterial reality does not exist. Naturalism and materialism are not scientific conclusions; rather, they are scientific premises. They are not discovered in nature but imposed upon nature. In short, they are articles of faith.

Here’s something to ponder which was written by Richard Lewontin, geneticist and author of Billions and Billions of Demons:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment – a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori commitment to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” [Emphasis added.]

The million-dollar question: Is science intrinsically atheistic? Well, yes. From a procedural or narrow sense, science is anti-God. And this is probably okay, because we don’t want scientists who run into difficulty proving their theories to get out of the dilemma simply by saying, “You know, I’m not going to investigate this any longer. I’m just going to put it down as a miracle.” Could you imagine what would happen to the “reputation” of miracles if we called everything we cannot understand a miracle? Moreover, there are many religious scientists who find no difficulty in working within the domain of procedural atheism while at the same time holding their religious beliefs. Biologist Francis Collins says that as a biologist he investigates natural explanations for the origin of life, while as a Christian he believes that there are also supernatural forces at work. Science is not the only way of knowing.

The more I read the works of today’s apologists and the counter-arguments of today’s atheists, the clearer it becomes to me that we are slowly uncovering scientific facts that speak loudly of the existence of a creative force in the universe. I see that reality goes much deeper than the scientific portrait of it. Many people regard scientific and religious claims as inherently contradictory simply because they are unwitting captives to a second type of atheism, which has been identified as philosophical atheism. The best way to define this term is the dogma that material and natural reality is all that exists. Everything else is illusory. Atheists of this persuasion, and this would include Richard Dawkins, pretend that because God cannot be discovered through science – which is a dubious claim anyway! – God cannot be discovered at all.

Here’s the thing about philosophical atheism: Only data that fit the theory are allowed into the theory. By contrast, the theist is much more open-minded and reasonable. The theist does not deny the validity of scientific reasoning. Again, we have only to look to the great scientists who were Christians. The theist is entirely willing to acknowledge material and natural causes for events. After all, it is God who put the laws of physics in motion when He created the universe. I am of the firm belief that physic did not exist before the universe existed, therefore physics cannot be used to explain how the universe came into being. (Consider, for example, the first law of thermodynamics.) However, the theist also admits the possibility of other types of knowledge

Let me take a moment to point out something very few have focused on in arguing that God simply cannot exist because the explanation of a supreme deity is far too simple to be true. They claim belief in God cannot explain the complex theory of evolution. Richard Dawkins, in his seminal book The God Delusion, faults theologian Richard Swinburne’s concept that examination of electrons shows God’s hand in all of creation, and His ongoing sustenance of all that exists. Swinburne said billions and billions of electrons, all with the same properties, all working together in perfect symmetry, is too much of a coincidence. Dawkins states, “But how can Swinburne possibly maintain that this hypothesis of God simultaneously keeping a gazillion fingers on wayward electrons is a simple hypothesis? It is, of course, precisely the opposite of simple. Swinburne pulls off the trick to his own satisfaction by a breathtaking piece of intellectual chutzpah. He asserts, without justification, that God is only a single substance. What brilliant economy of explanatory causes, compared with all those gigazillions of independent electrons all just happening to be the same!”

First of all, Dawkins and many others continue to quote statements made decades, and sometimes centuries, ago in support of their attack on theists, and do not include remarks that indicate how far science and religion have come as partners in discovering the origin of life. For example, some modern theorists see randomness as a genuine design feature, and not just as a physicalist gloss. Their challenge is to explain how divine providence is compatible with genuine randomness. (Under a deistic view, one could simply say that God started the universe off and did not interfere with how it went, but that option is not open to the theist, and most authors in the field of science and religion are theists, rather than deists.)

Elizabeth Johnson (1996), using a Thomistic view of divine action, argues that divine providence and true randomness are compatible: God gives creatures true causal powers, thus making creation more excellent than if they lacked such powers, and random occurrences are also secondary causes; chance is a form of divine creativity that creates novelty, variety, and freedom. One implication of this view is that God may be a risk taker – although, if God has a providential plan for possible outcomes, there is unpredictability but not risk. Johnson uses metaphors of risk-taking that, on the whole, leave the creator in a position of control (creation, then, is like jazz improvisation), but it is, to her, a risk nonetheless. Why would God take risks? There are several solutions to this question. The free will theodicy says that a creation that exhibits randomness can be truly free and autonomous:

Authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation. Such freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution, and not by strings of divine direction attached to every living creature. (Miller 1999/2007: 289)

What’s fascinating to me is that none of these cherished atheist theories can account for the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, or the origin of human rationality and morality. Any theory that cannot account for these landmark stages can hardly claim to have solved the problem of origins, either of life or of the universe. The universe could not have evolved solely through natural selection, as the universe makes up the whole of nature. Someone made the universe and prescribed the laws that govern its operations. There are innumerable life forms in the universe. These life forms are the product of evolution (natural selection), and Darwin and his successors have elegantly elucidated how the selection process occurred. Of this I have no doubt. Accordingly, I am not a hardcore young earth creationist. But evolution has no explanation for the origin of the universe or its laws. So how can evolution undercut the argument from design as it applies to the universe itself and the laws that govern it?

Simple. Scientific truth is not the entire truth.

REFERENCES

Dawkins, R. (2008). The God Delusion. New York, NY: Mariner Books
DeCruz, H. (2017). “Religion and Science.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Science. (Spring 2017 Edition). URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/religion-science/
D’Souza, D. (2007). What’s So Great About Christianity? Carol Stream, IL: Tyndall Press
Phillips, W., Brown, W. and Stonestreet, J. (2008). Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview. Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Company