God and Science: An Overview

     science1

     There are usually three types of minds: open, closed and empty. Try to keep yours open, if you dislike this title out of your solid beliefs, or lack thereof.

     Truth. We seek–nay, we demand–truth in our daily lives. We need truth from our loved ones; our doctors, scientists, reference books, educators, etc. Why is it we seek out this truth? Did it evolve? Maybe. 

     St. Augustine said, “We love the truth when it enlightens us but we hate it when it convicts us.” Truth is that which corresponds to its object or that which describes an actual state of affairs. Truth is discovered, not invented. Truth is transcultural, unchanging. Truth is not affected by beliefs or attitudes. The statement, “All truth is relative” is a self-defeating statement, as well as “there are no absolutes.” Is the first phrase true? Are you absolutely sure the second phrase is true?  

     “Truths are discovered by empirical observation or they are true by their very definition,” said David Hume. Unfortunately, that statement is neither true by definition nor is it empirically verifiable. The foundation for agnosticism and skepticism were thrown right out the window by their own self-defeating statements. Immanuel Kant claimed that we can never truly know anything of itself except what we perceive it to be; in that our mind shapes the tree because we expect what a tree should look, feel, and smell like. This is absurd; the sights and shapes in existence shape our minds, not the other way around. Enough of truth. This snippet’s reason is to shed light on what truth really is; that truth doesn’t shape itself around your emotions or biases. 

     Induction is drawing conclusions from specific observations; deduction is lining up premises in an argument and arriving at a valid conclusion. The problem with deduction is assuming the premises are true themselves. Discovering that a premise is true requires induction. Keep that in mind.

     I’m going to list five facts, discovered by science, to illustrate why a Designer is implied for our universe, and an implied beginning (The Big Bang): 

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. (Universe’s energy is draining.) 

2. The universe is expanding (Einstein didn’t like this; he was dead-set on the Static Theory. Once he reviewed Fr. Joseph Lemaitre’s evidence on it, he confessed it was the best explanation for the creation of the universe he’s ever seen.) 

3. Radiation from the Big Bang (somewhere around 2* Kelvin and cooling, dispersed equally) 

4. Galaxy seeds. George Smoot discovered in 1992 from the COBE satellite ripples in cosmic radiation which allowed matter from the Big Bang to collect and “seed” galaxies via gravity. 

5. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. This shows that time-space-matter are all relative, in that one doesn’t exist without the other, hence, a beginning to the universe. 

     If there was nothing before the Big Bang, which evidence in support has been rigorously established up to this point, then something had to be around outside of space-time to make it. 

     Let’s go over some more implications of a Designer. Have you heard of anthropic constants? Things like the speed of light, gravity, nuclear force, weak force, electromagnetic force, and around 117 other different constants. These constants we learn from astrophysics, physics and other observations, were exactly the same now, as right before the Big Bang. If any one of them were a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent off, we wouldn’t be in a universe which could sustain life. Say if the gravitational and electromagnetic force were off by a tiny fraction; you’d have either blue giants, which would bake everything making life impossible, or red dwarves (these are stars, BTW) where everything in the universe would freeze, hence, no life.  

     The point is, the actual chance of a universe “spontaneously” coming into existence, with these exact, precise and delicate balances, all with the known elements to sustain life, are 10^ 10^138 — to 1 (Hugh Ross). That’s ten times ten to the 138th power — to 1. The same type of ratio can be applied a couple of ways: 1) a tornado comes through a junkyard and assembles a fully functioning Boeing 747 ready for flight (with fuel); and 2) setting a monkey in an office with a keyboard and he types out Shakespeare’s entire works by randomly typing for two weeks. Darwinist’s claim this is possible by random variation and natural selection–all from primordial ooze where some muck came together, then “somehow” created the millions (including insects) of species we have living here. All from one cell. All. From. One. Cell.

     And we Christians are the daft ones. Let me state categorically that I do believe evolution is real: microevolution. Could we have evolved from another type of humanoid? Maybe. Or perhaps apes, but as for Darwin’s argument about them sharing “99% of our DNA,” guess what? Around ~95-98% of our DNA is also just as close to mice. Consider the statements: 

Darwin was a science god. 

Darwin was a science dog. 

     Same letters, entirely different meaning. See how little change DNA needs to come up with an entirely different species? 

     “Well, given enough time and chance, anything could happen.” Sorry. Empirical evidence dictates life comes from life. Personality comes from personality. Let me clear something up now: there is empirical science and forensic science (as a basis for now and “before”). Empirical science studies the present; regularities, repeatable (able to be recreated), tests by experimentation, and the like. Empirical science asks the “how” of things and their functions and/or reactions. Forensic science studies the past, singularities, unrepeatable, (impossible to recreate), the “how” things began, tested by uniformity.

     Darwinists claim nothing erupted into something. For one, nothing does not exist; at least it doesn’t now. Everything has atoms; even a zero-charge quantum field is something. Empty space really isn’t “empty”. It’s malleable, orient-able, can contract and expand, and it’s also dimensional. Nothing can simply do–nothing. “Nothing” cannot move itself (which is, BTW, something) to create something, collect more something from nothing, and then explode. 

     The fact is, it takes a hell of a lot more faith to be an Atheist, Darwinist, Naturalist, Humanist, Empiricist, and even Agnostic than it does to be a Christian. Closing one’s mind off to even the possibility of an Intelligent Designer is not science whatsoever; it’s a bias which has yet to be, nor will it ever be proven that this universe absolutely does NOT need a creator. It’s a huge leap of faith to believe that: 1) order arose from chaos; 2) something arose from nothing; 3) personality arose from non-personality; 4) all species came from one cell [which by the way is irreducibly complex; more on that in a minute] 5) the cell “somehow” became self-sufficient by evolving the necessary components, such as the mitochondria, cilia, cell membrane, nucleus etc., from ooze; 6) you must believe that the DNA in the cell, which requires protein (and which protein requires DNA–chicken/egg) spontaneously appeared in perfect structure with information to dictate millions of species for future macroevolution (whereby there is no verifiable scientific evidence to support). So, yeah, have at it. You need an incredible amount of faith to believe as a Darwinist. So much so that I am incapable of doing it. The Darwinist suffers from believing in a secular religion masquerading as science. 

     Irreducible complexity is the known fact that certain structures in carbon lifeforms (such as cells in your eyes, cilia in cells, blood clotting)–are all irreducible; where if they were missing pieces (“long, over time, evolution, slowly building up…”) they would not function, nor would they survive. Think of a mouse trap. If you remove one piece, does it still function as a mouse trap? 

     There is WAY more than I actually care to put here. These are just some of the things I’ve been learning over the years in my own search for the truth. Plato famously coined the Trancendentals. The human need for unconditional truth, love, goodness/justice, beauty, being/home. His thought was if we know what we desire unconditionally, we have to know or at least imagine what those trancendentals were in their perfect form; i.e. heaven, God. If we have a high standard it’s because we have a soul with the knowledge that we will never acquire perfect/unconditional truth, love, goodness, beauty and being in this life.

     The universe had a beginning. Therefore, the universe has an end. Before the universe there was nothing. If there was nothing, the universe had to exist as an idea. An idea implies a mind. A mind implies an intelligence. Based on the scientific evidence we have now, it is logical to imply that the universe had a beginning (and therefore, a Beginner), and a complex design (therefore a Designer).  

     If the universe had no beginning (which science refutes emphatically), that does not automatically infer it did not need a creator. In order to rule out an intelligent designer, science would first have to observe the universe in its entirety, know that it had observed everything, and then somehow “assume” a creator isn’t needed. 

     Believe what you like. I believe science has only increased my faith. Probably because I have an open mind and don’t automatically and immediately reduce life to “just chemical reactions”. Although we are chemicals, they can’t explain the mind. Not completely. Nor can they eliminate a soul.

By Eric Moody

Advertisements