"Science and religion cannot be reconciled.”
Peter Atkins
Peter Atkins
“All my studies in science… have confirmed my faith.”
Sir Ghillean Prance FRS
Sir Ghillean Prance FRS
Wearing my new glasses! |
Recently I picked up a pair of glasses for distance viewing,
which for me is the first time ever. I was amazed at how sharp my vision was. The
definition and clarity in road signs, trees, and buildings was astounding! It literally
took me back almost 35 years to when my vision was much better!
Origins of Complex
Life
I began to think about the different explanations for
the existence of something as complex and functional as the human eye. A theist
(one who believes in a deity) would say the eye was designed and created by God,
while an atheist would say the eye emerged automatically out of matter through
a mindless, unguided process. As I marveled at the sharpness of my vision, I couldn’t
help but wonder whether atheism really requires more faith than theism (1). Why,
if something as marvelous as vision simply emerged from the primordial soup,
would vision be so sharp? Why, for example, wouldn’t it be sufficient for the
eye to evolve just to the point of my present vision without glasses, which is
still overall quite functional? (2) This question is similar to, although not
as potentially damning as what has become known as Darwin’s Doubt. Darwin
wrote: ‘With me, the horrid doubt always
arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the
mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.’
Mathematicians have calculated that it is highly improbable that the eye
could have evolved by numerous small mutational changes since the available
time was simply not available. Even so-called new atheist Richard Dawkins,
author of “The God Delusion” stated: ‘You don’t need to be a mathematician or a
physicist to calculate that an eye…would take from here to infinity to self-assemble
by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck.’ Dawkins’ explanation, in a nutshell, is that
natural selection is a law-like process that finds a faster pathway through the
space of possibilities, which will increase the probabilities to acceptable
levels over geological time. There isn’t space in this post to delve into the
nuts and bolts of his explanation, but Oxford mathematician Dr. John Lennox
dissects it brilliantly and concludes that Dawkins’ explanation turns out to be
a guided process after all (3).
Science has Disproved
God?
The new atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins also
claim that science has eliminated the justification for believing in God. As a
scientist who believes in God, I resoundingly reject that claim. A poll published in Nature in the
mid-1990’s revealed that about 40% of all scientists believe both in a God who answers
prayer and in immortality (4). There have also been and are some very prominent
scientists who do believe in God – Francis Collins, Director of the Human
Genome Project, Professor Bill Phillips, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics
in 1997, and others (5). The scientist Sir John Houghton FRS wrote: ‘Our science
is God’s science. He holds the responsibility for the whole scientific story… (6)
This reflects the belief of many scientists.
Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, who was not a believer in
God, wrote: ‘Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the
science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs –
and equally compatible with atheism.’ Gould also said that ‘science simply
cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible
existence. We neither affirm it nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as
scientists’ (7). Prominent atheist Thomas Nagel goes even farther, criticizing
the new atheists by saying their conception of nature, which is unable to
account for mind-related features such as consciousness, meaning, and value, flies in the face of common sense and is
almost certainly false (8).
War of the Worldviews
In his book God’s
Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (9), Dr. John Lennox points out that, in
light of some of the points made above, the real conflict isn’t between science
and God at all. If that were true, the vast majority of scientists would
be atheists, which simply isn’t so. No, the real conflict is between two opposing
worldviews: theism and naturalism. Naturalism
is opposed to supernaturalism, and naturalism insists there can be no incursion
into nature from outside of nature (such as God, angels, etc.). Therefore,
naturalists have no other option than to insist that matter and energy must have
the potential to organize themselves in such a way that eventually something as
complex as the eye, or the human mind with its inherent hunger for meaning and purpose,
will emerge.
Dr. Lennox concludes his book by noting that all of us must choose
essentially between one of two presuppositions that will form the basis of our
worldview. He wrote: ‘Either human intelligence
ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator.’
As I drove into my driveway after picking up my glasses, I
got out of the car and looked up into the starry sky. The ‘restored’ clarity of
my vision truly enhanced the beauty of the moon and stars in the night sky.
As I stood there I thought of the Psalmists words: ‘The heavens declare the
glory of God’ (10). And I thanked God that he gave me the ability to see with
my eyes and comprehend with my mind even just a small glimpse of his glory!
Footnotes:
(1) There is actually an astounding amount of evidence, historical
and otherwise, to support the claims of Christianity. See the book The Case for Christ, by Lee Stobel.
(2) Even evolution to that point would be quite remarkable!
(3) God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Chapter 10:
The Monkey Machine. 2009, Lion Books, Oxford, UK.
(4) Survey results reported in Nature, 3 April 1997, 386:435-6. Note that believing in a God who
answers prayer and in immortality is much more specific than simply believing
in some kind of divine being.
(5) See my earlier post: Scientists Who Believe in God.
(6) He went on to say: ‘The remarkable order, consistency,
reliability and fascinating complexity found in the scientific description of
the universe are reflections of the order, consistency, reliability and
complexity of God’s activity (The Search for God – Can Science Help?, Oxford,
Lion, 1995, p. 59). Houghton is the former Director of the British
Meteorological Office, co-Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, and Director of the John Ray Initiative on the Environment.
(7) As quoted in God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God, 2009, p. 92 and 93. Original source: Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge. Scientific American
267, no. 1, 1992, 118-121.
(8) Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, by Thomas Nagel. 2012, Oxford.
(9) Much of the material in this blog post is from this book by Dr. Lennox.
(10) The heavens declare the glory of God; the
skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they
reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. Psalm 19:1-4
They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. Psalm 19:1-4
It has always struck me as odd that some scientists feel they must eliminate God from the list of possible explanations for life. Thanks for the encouraging post!
ReplyDeleteAnd those scientists are typically the most vocal of all, which leads many people to conclude that science HAS disproved God's existence, which we know simply isn't true! Thanks for your comment!
ReplyDelete