Download Belief that God Exists Does Science Support It

Belief that God Exists:
Does Science Support It?
Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2008
I. Science Began With God
II. Science Departed from God
III. Science Returns to God
Most Founders of Modern
Science Believed in God
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Celestial
Mechanics,
Physical Astronomy
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Hydrostatics
Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Chemistry, Gas
Dynamics
Nicolaus Steno (1638-1687)
Stratigraphy
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Calculus, Dynamics
•
•
•
•
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Geology,
Ichthyology
James Simpson (1811-1870)
Gynecology
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Bacteriology
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Energetics,
Thermodynamics
•
Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
Glacial
Sir Isaac Newton
(1642-17
“It is not
to
be conceived that
mere
mechanical causes could
give birth to so many regular
motions, since the comets
range over all parts of the heavens
in very eccentric orbits.... This
most beautiful system of the sun,
planets, and comets, could only
proceed from the counsel and
dominion of an intelligent and
powerful Being" ("Scholium," 369).
Johannes
Kepler
(1571-163
"May God make it
come to pass
that my
delightful speculation [in
Mysterium Cosmographicum] have
everywhere among reasonable men
fully the effect which I strove
to obtain in the publication;
namely, that the belief in the
creation of the world be
fortified through this external
support...." (cited by Holton,
Origins, 84)
The Father of Modern
Science:
Francis Bacon (1620)
"Only let the human
race recover that
right over nature
which belongs to it
by divine bequest [in
Gen. 1:28], and let
power be given it;
the exercise thereof
will be governed by
sound reason and true
religion" (Novum
Alfred N.
Whitehead:
"The faith in the
possibility of
science, generated
antecedently to the
development of
modern scientific
theory, is an
unconscious
derivative from
Foster:
"What is the source of the
un-Greek elements
which...constitute the
modernity of modern
philosophy? And...what is the
source of those un-Greek
elements in the modern theory
of nature...? The answer to
the first question is: The
Christian revelation, and the
answer to the second: The
Professor Langdon
Gilkey:
“The religious
idea of a
transcendent Creator
actually made possible
rather than hindered
the
progress of the
scientific
understanding of the
natural order. The modern
investigators of nature were the
first to take seriously in their
science the Christian doctrine
Summary: Science Began with God
1. The father of modern science said so.
2. The founders of modern science said so.
3. Historians of modern science said so.
I. Science Began With God
II. Science Departed from God
A. By Limiting Science to
Secondary
Causes
(Francis Bacon 1620)
True knowledge is "knowledge
by causes."
"The efficient and the material
(...as remote [primary] causes...)
are but slight and superficial,
and contribute little, if
anything, to true and active
science.”
Nature operates by "fixed laws"
(Novum Organum 2.3.121).
B. By Separating Science from
Primary Causes (Galileo
(1564-1642).
He affirmed that "It is the intention of
the Holy Spirit [in Scripture] to teach
us how one goes to heaven, and not how
the heavens go" (Dutchess..., 11).
The supernatural is the source
of the natural world, but the natural
world is the proper domain of science
(ibid., 17).
Note: Both Bacon and Galileo
recognized the difference between a
primary Cause (God) of the world’s
C. By a “God-of-the-Gaps”
Error
(Sir
Isaac Newton (1642-1727).
But Newton invoked
divine intervention to explain
the irregular orbit of some
planets. This opened him up to
a “God-of-the-gaps” charge
that God was invoked to
explain the operation of the
world simply because one could
not find a natural cause.
Pierre Simon Laplace
(1749-1827)
He rejected a “God-of-theGaps”
"I must here remark how Newton
has erred on this point, from the
method which he has otherwise so
happily applied" (System 2:4:331).
“Such an error arises when
"the imagination, impatient to
arrive at the causes, takes
pleasure in creating hypotheses,
and often it changes the facts in
order to adapt them to its work“
By Limiting
God to
Causing Only the
Material World
(Kant "I
1724-1804)
find matter
D.
bound to certain
necessary
laws. Out of its universal
dissolution and dissipation I see
a beautiful and orderly whole
quite naturally developing
itself. This does not take place
by accident, or of chance [but by
God]; but it is perceived that
intelligent certainty and without
audacity: 'Give me matter, and I
will construct a world out of
it!‘” But "...are we in a position
to say: `Give me matter and I
will show you how a caterpillar
can be produced?'" His answer was
a bold Yes! But, he believed that
"...the origin of the whole
present constitution of the
universe, will become intelligible
before the production of a single
herb or a caterpillar by
mechanical causes, will become
E. By Viewing Natural Laws
as
Immutable (Laplace
1749-1827)
For "All events, even
those which
on account of
their insignificance
do
not seem to follow the great
laws of nature, are a result of it
just
as necessarily as the
revolutions of
the sun." It
is only "In ignorance of the ties which
unite such events to the entire system
of the universe, they have been made to
depend upon final causes or upon hazard
[chance] For "all the effects of nature
are only mathematical results of a small
number of immutable laws" (Laplace,
Blind Force Can Explain All
Laplace also rejected Newton's
idea that a blind force "could
never make all the planets move
thus, with some irregularities
hardly perceivable...." He asked,
"...could not this arrangement of
the planets be itself an effect of
the laws of motion; and could not
the supreme intelligence which
Newton makes to interfere, make it
to depend on a more general
phenomenon? such as, according to
us, a nebulous matter distributed
Benedict
Spinoza
(1632-
1677) Natural
Laws are Immutable
"Nothing then, comes to pass
in nature in contravention
to her universal laws,
for...she keeps a fixed and
immutable order." Hence, "a
miracle, whether in
Laplace and Napolean
When Napolean enquired
about the absence of God in
Laplace’s scientific views,
Laplace is said to have
replied: “Sir, I have no need
for that hypothesis.”
Principles Operating in Modern Science
1. Principle of Causality: All events have a cause.
2. Principle of Uniformity (Analogy): Past events
have similar causes to present ones.
3. Principle of Continuity: There is an unbroken
chain of causal events extending into the
remote past.
4. If a Primary Cause [God] exists, He is
responsible for the origin of the world, but
secondary causes (natural forces) are
responsible for the operation of the natural
world after that.
1. The Principle of
Causality
Francis Bacon: True knowledge is
"knowledge by causes” (Novum
Organum, Book 2, no. II).
1. The Principle of
Causality
Francis Bacon: True knowledge is
"knowledge by causes” (Novum
Organum, Book 2, no. II).
Laplace: He speaks of “…the
evident principle that a thing
cannot occur without a cause
which produces it"
(Probabilities, 4).
1. The Principle of
Causality
Francis Bacon: True knowledge is
"knowledge by causes” (Novum
Organum, Book 2, no. II).
Laplace: He speaks of “…the
evident principle that a thing
cannot occur without a cause
which produces it"
(Probabilities, 4).
Hume: “I never asserted so absurd a
proposition as that a thing could arise without
2. The Principle Analogy
(Uniformity)
“The present is the key to the past.”
“Analogy is based upon the
probability that similar
things have causes of the same
kind and produce the same
effects." And "this
probability increases as the
similitude becomes more
perfect" (Laplace,
Probabilities, 180).
Thus, scientific views
3. The Principle of
Continuity
Laplace believed "we ought
then to regard the present
state of the universe as the
effect of its anterior state
and as the cause of the one
which is to follow." Thus,
"present events are connected
with preceding ones by a tie
based upon the evident
principle that a thing cannot
occur without a cause which
4. Primary Cause is responsible for
the origin of the natural world, but
secondary (natural) causes are
responsible for its operation.
4. Primary Cause is responsible for
the origin of the natural world, but
secondary (natural) causes are
responsible for its operation.
Conclusions:
1. If the universe is eternal, then there is no
needs for a primary Cause to get it
started (as the principle of continuity
shows).
4. Primary Cause is responsible for
the origin of the natural world, but
secondary (natural) causes are
responsible for its operation.
Conclusions:
1. If the universe is eternal, then there is no
needs for a primary Cause to get it
started (as the principle of continuity
shows).
2. But if the universe is not eternal, then it
needs a primary Cause to get it started
(as the principle of causality states).
3. Supernatural Cause (God) should not
be used to explain the regular operation
of the world (for that is a “God-of-gaps”
fallacy).
4. If life is eternal, then there is not need
for a primary cause to get it started.
5. If life is not eternal, then it needs a
cause to get it started (as the principle of
causality demands).
6. A primary cause(s) in the past must be
like one(s) in the present (as the
principle of analogy dictates).
Reopening the Door to
God:
With a Big Bang!
Voiding the Principle of
Continuity
"There is a kind of
religion in
science. It is the religion of a person
who believes there is order
and
harmony in the
universe.... Every
effect must have its cause: There is
no first cause.... This
religious faith
of the
scientists is violated by the discovery
that the world had a beginning under
conditions in which the known laws of
physics are not valid, and as a product
I. Science Began With God
II. Science Departed from God
III. Science Returns to God
III. Science Returns to God
A. Philosophical Response
B. Scientific Response
A. Philosophical Response
1. The principle of continuity only applies
if the universe had no beginning.
2. The principle of analogy shows that some
causes are intelligent causes.
3. Not all things that operate by natural
laws have a natural cause for their
origin.
1. The Philosophical Argument for
a Beginning of the Universe
The Kalam Argument:
1. An infinite series of moments has no end.
2. But the series of all moments before the
present ends with the present moment.
3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number
of moments before the present moment.
Hence, time (the temporal world) had a
beginning.
God from a Skeptics Premises
David Hume said:
1. Every event has a cause: “I never asserted so
absurd a proposition as that a thing could
arise without a cause” (Hume, Letters, 1.187).
2. Time had a beginning: Because “An infinite
number of real parts of time, passing in
succession, and exhausted one after another,
appears so evident a contradiction, that no
man, one should think, whose judgment is not
corrupted…would ever be able to admit of it”
(Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human
Understanding, Sect. XII, Part II).
3. Therefore, time (the temporal world) had a
Cause.
A. Philosophical Response
1. The principle of continuity only applies
if the universe had no beginning.
2. The principle of analogy shows that some
causes are intelligent causes.
2. The principle of analogy shows that
some causes are intelligent causes.
If the present is the key to the past, then
the kind of cause that produces a certain
kind of event in the present (which we know
by observation and repetition) calls for a
similar cause in the past for that kind of
event.
Two Types of Causes
Natural
Intelligent
This is known by observation
and repetition in the present
TWO TYPES OF CAUSES
Natural
Sand Dune
Intelligent
Sand Castle
Two Types of Causes
Natural
Intelligent
Water Falls
Crystals
Sand Dunes
Round stones
Clouds
Power Plant
Chandelier
Sand Castle
Arrowheads
Skywriting
This is known by observation
and repetition in the present
Sciences with Intelligent Causes
•
1. Archaeology (pottery)
2. Forensic science (homicide)
3. Cryptology (code)
4. SETI (message from outer space)
5. Information Theory (letter frequencies)
6. Intelligent Design (ID)--same principles
The Fallacy of Naturalism: Assuming all causes
are natural causes. 1) This begs the question,
and, 2) It is not scientific since it is contrary to
observation and repetition in the present.
A. Philosophical Response
1. The principle of continuity does not
apply since the universe had a
beginning.
2. The principle of analogy shows that
some causes are intelligent causes.
3. Not all things that operate by natural
laws have a natural cause.
Illustration: A Motor
• Its Origin
Its Operation
• How it Originates
How it Operates
• (by an intelligent cause) (by natural laws)
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
•
–
Conductor
Current (spark)
Power source (gas)
Law of gravity
Laws of friction
Laws of motion
Laws if tension
Laws of combustion
(which never
produce a motor)
What About the Origin Of
a bacterial rotary motor?
Analogy calls for an intelligent Cause of it too
Response to Modern Naturalism
A. Philosophical Response
B. Scientific Response
Response to Modern Naturalism
A. Philosophical Response
B. Scientific Response
1. The Origin of the Universe
2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
3. The Specified Complexity of Life
B. Scientific Response
1. The Argument from the Origin of
the Universe:
1. Everything that begins had a cause.
2. The physical universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the physical universe had a
Cause.
Five lines of Evidence that the
Universe had a Beginning
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING
RADIATION ECHO
GREAT MASS OF MATTER
EINSTEIN’S GENERAL RELATIVITY
Second Law of Thermodynamics
•
“Once hydrogen has been
burned within that star and
converted to heavier elements,
it can never be restored to its
original state. Minute by
minute and year by year, as
hydrogen is used up in stars,
the supply of this element in
the universe grows smaller”
(Jastrow, God and the
Astronomers, 15-16).
UNUSABLE
ENERGY
Note:
If the universe is
running out of useable
energy, then it must
have had a beginning
(since it is not
possible to run out of
an infinite amount of
Universe is
Expanding
"He [Alan Sandage]
compiled information on 42
galaxies, ranging out in
space as far as six billion
light years from us. His
measurements indicate that
the Universe was expanding
more rapidly in the past than
it is today. This result
lends further support to the
belief that the Universe
Radiation
Echo
"No explanation other than the
big bang has been found for the
fireball radiation. The
clincher, which has convinced
almost the last doubting Thomas,
is that the radiation discovered
by Penzias and Wilson has
exactly the pattern of
wavelengths expected for the
light and heat produced in a
great explosion. Supporters of
the Steady State theory have
tried desperately to find an
Great
Mass of Energy
Discovered
The Hubble Space Telescope (1992)
found a great mass of matter
predicted by the Big Bang theory.
"By peering back into the
beginning of time, a satellite
finds the largest and oldest
structure ever observed--evidence
of how the universe took shape 15
billion years ago." One
scientist exclaimed, "It's like
looking at God" (Time, May 4, 1993,
62, emphasis added).
Einstein’s General
Relativity
He argued “There is no such
thing as an empty space, i.e., a
space without a field. Spacetime does not claim existence
on its own, but only as a
structural quality of the field” (in Heeren,
Shew Me God, 93).
But matter exploded into being.
Thus, time must have had a beginning.
Einstein’s “Fudge
Factor”
• Being a pantheist (and
naturalist) like Spinoza,
Einstein tried to reject a
beginning of the universe by
introducing a "fudge factor" in
his equation.
• However, Einstein later admitted
his error and spoke of his
desire "to know how God created
the universe." He said, "I am
not interested in this or that
phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this of that element. I want to
Robert Jastrow: Back to the
Bible
“Now we see how
the
astronomical evidence
leads to a biblical
view of
the origin of the world. The
details differ,
but the essential elements in
the astronomical and biblical
accounts of genesis are the
same: the chain of events
Science Leads to the Supernatural
"Astronomers now find that
they have painted themselves
into a corner because they
have proven, by their own
methods, that the world began
abruptly in an act of
creation.... And they have
found that all this happened
as a product of forces they
cannot hope to discover"
(Jastrow CT, (8/6/82), 15).
Science Ends With a
Beginning
"The scientists pursuit of
the past ends in the moment of
creation. This is an
exceedingly strange development,
unexpected by all but
theologians. They have always
accepted the word of the Bible:
`In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth'"
An Agnostic Astronomer
•
–
"That there are
what I or anyone
would call supernatural forces at
work is now, I think,
a scientifically
proven fact" (Jastrow
in Christianity Today
[1982], 8).
Science Returns to God
"For the scientist who has lived by
faith in the power of reason, the story
ends like a bad dream. He has scaled
the mountain of ignorance: He is
about to conquer the highest peak; as
he pulls himself over the final rock,
he is greeted by a band of theologians
who have been sitting there for
centuries" (Jastrow, GA, 116).
B. Scientific Response
1. The Argument from the Origin of the
Universe:
a. Everything that begins had a cause.
b. The physical universe had a beginning
c. Therefore, the physical universe had a
Cause.
B. Scientific Response
1. The Argument from the Origin of the
Universe:
a. Everything that begins had a cause.
b. The physical universe had a beginning
c. Therefore, the physical universe had a
Cause.
[But the Cause of the whole natural world
cannot be a natural cause. Hence, there is a
supernatural Cause of the natural world.]
Objection Answered
Objection: Doesn’t the First Law of thermodynamics
show the world is eternal when it states that “Energy
can neither be created nor destroyed”?
Response:
1. This is a false statement of the First Law which
should be stated: “The amount of actual energy in
the universe remains constant.” The naturalist’s
misstatement is based on philosophical speculation,
not empirical observation (as operation science is).
2. The First Law says nothing about the origin of the
universe; it leaves that question open.
3. The Second Law closes the question by showing that
the universe had a beginning (because the amount
of useable energy is decreasing).
Response to Modern Naturalism
A. Philosophical Response
B. Scientific Response
1. The Origin of the Universe
2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
From the beginning the universe was
fine-tuned for the emergence of human
life. Without that advanced pre-tuning,
human life would never have emerged.
The Anthropic Principle
"The anthropic principle is the
most interesting development next
to the proof of the creation, and it
is even more interesting because it
seems to say that science itself
has proven, as a hard fact, that
this universe was made, was
designed, for man to live in. It is a
very theistic result" (Jastrow,
Christianity Today [1982], 17).
Universe was Fine-Tuned for Human Life
1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life.
2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist.
3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for life.
4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life.
5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for life.
6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life.
7. The speed of light is proper amount for life.
8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together.
9. The distance between stars is necessary for life.
10. The cosmological constant (energy density of
space) is minutely right for matter to exist.
11. The right amount of seismic activity is needed for life.
12. The position of Jupiter protects life on earth.
There are more than 100 of these!
Who Designed the Universe?
Guillermo Gonzalez
A Super-Intelligent Cause
"The harmony of natural
law . . .reveals an
intelligence of such
superiority that, compared
with it, all the systematic
thinking and acting of
human beings is an utterly
insignificant reflection" (in
Heeren, Shew Me God, 66).
I. Science Began With God
II. Science Departed from God
III. Science Returns to God
A. Philosophical Response
B. Scientific Response
1. The Origin of the Universe
2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
3. The Specified Complexity of Life
What is Specified Complexity?
Leslie Orgel: “Living organisms are distinguished by
their specified complexity. Crystals… fail to qualify as
living because they lack complexity; random polymers
fail to qualify because they lack specificity” (The Origin of
Life, 189).
Crystals are specified but not complex.
A Crystal: Star Star Star Star Star Star
Random polymers are complex but not specified.
Polypeptide: TGELSIDHT BTWORMHOC PUOXHDMBT
Life is both specified and complex.
Protein: “A star is shinning brightly in the sky.”
Languages Have Specified Complexity
Hubert Yockey: “The sequence
hypothesis applies directly to the
protein and the genetic text as well
as to written languages and
therefore the treatment is
mathematically identical” (Journal
of Theoretical Biology, 1981).
Information Theory
Claude E. Shannon
Letter sequence
reveals whether
information is
being conveyed by
a series of letters,
even if one does
not know the
language.
Intelligent Design from
an Intelligent Being!
O
H
_
G
O
B
G
Former Atheist Sir Fred
Hoyle
"Biochemical systems are
exceedingly complex, so much
so that the chance of their
being formed through random
shuffling of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly
minute, to a point indeed
where it is insensibly
different from zero." Thus,
based on analogy it is
reasonable to postulate "...an
Former Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle
“Believing that life
happened by pure
change is like believing
that a Boeing 747
resulted from a tornado
raging through a
junkyard! [even if the
junk was Boeing 747
parts]”
Genetic Code’s Four Nucleotides
A T
1
C G
T A
G C
A T
3
A
T
2
G
4
Adenine Thymine
Sugar &
Phosphate
Molecules
C
Cytosine
Guanine
Base Pairs
One Ameba
=1,000 Sets
Former Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle
“A common sense interpretation
of the facts suggests that a super
intellect has monkeyed with
physics, as well as chemistry and
biology, and that there are no
blind forces worth speaking about
in nature” (“The Universe: Past and
Present Reflections,” Engineering and
Science (November, 1981), 12.
SETI: One Message Proves an
Intelligent Cause (Carl Sagan)
Human Brain = 20 million
volumes of genetic information!
20 million = 1000 volumes
on each seat!
Former Atheist Alan
andage
"As I said before, the world is
too complicated in all of its parts
to be due to chance alone. I am
convinced that the existence of
life with all its order in each of
its organisms is simply too well
put together. Each part of a
living thing depends on all its
other parts to function. How does
each part know? How is each part
specified at conception. The more
one learns of biochemistry the more
unbeliev- able it becomes unless
Response of Atheists:
“Nature-of-the-Gap Fallacy”
“It became an accepted doctrine that life
never arises except from life. So far as
actual evidence goes, this is still the only
possible conclusion. But since it is a
conclusion that seems to lead back to some
supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion
that [naturalistic] scientific men find very
difficult of acceptance” (J. W. N. Sullivan,
The Limitations of Science, 94).
The Argument
from Specified Complexity
1. Human language has specified
complexity.
2. Life (DNA) has specified complexity.
3. The letter frequency is the same in
both life (DNA) and in a language.
4. But language has an intelligent
creator.
5. Therefore, life has an intelligent
creator.
Why Positing Natural Causes for
Specified Complexity is not Scientific
1. Science is based on observation and repetition.
2. There is no observed repetition in the present that
natural causes produce specified complexity.
3. So, there is no scientific basis for positing a natural
cause for specified complexity.
4. Science about the past is based on the principle of
uniformity (the present is key to the past).
5. Hence, the only scientific basis for positing a cause for
the specified complexity of first life in the universe
is evidence for an intelligent cause.
What About “The God-of-the-Gap”
Objection?
1. It is based on the false premise that all
causes are natural causes.
A. But the First Cause was not.
B. An intelligent causes are not natural ones.
2. It is not the lack of evidence that calls
for an intelligent cause; It is the
presence of specific evidence that calls
for an intelligent cause.
Two Types of Causes
Natural
Intelligent
TWO TYPES OF CAUSES
Natural
Sand Dune
Intelligent
Sand Castle
Two Types of Causes
Natural
Intelligent
Water Falls
Crystals
Sand Dunes
Round stones
Clouds
Power Plant
Chandelier
Sand Castle
Arrowheads
Skywriting
Principles of Science Lead to God
1. Principle of Causality: All events have a cause (leads to God as
Cause of the universe).
2. Principle of Uniformity (Analogy): Past events have similar
causes to present ones (leads to an intelligent Cause of the
universe {via anthropic principle} and of first life {via specified
complexity}).
3. Principle of Continuity: There is an unbroken chain of causal
events extending into the remote past (This is falsified by Big
Bang evidence).
4. Primary Cause [God] is responsible for the origin of the world
and life (which are singularities), but secondary causes (natural
forces) are responsible for the regular operation of the natural
world (which makes creation possible and preserves natural law
from a “God-of-the gaps” action in the operation of the regular
events of the natural world).
If God, then Miracles and Natural Law
“But if we admit God, must we
admit miracles? Indeed,
indeed, you have no security
against it. That is the bargain.”
Theology says. “Admit God and
the risk of a few miracles, and I
in return will ratify your faith in
the uniformity as regards the
overwhelming majority of
events” (C. S. Lewis, Miracles,
109).
What About “The God-of-the-Gap” Objection?
1. “God-of-the-gaps” is a valid objection when applied
to empirical science, that is, the operation of the
universe (because regular patterns are always
produced by natural law causes, even if we do not
know what they are).
2. But singularities like the origin of matter and of life
are not regular events. Hence, they do not
automatically call for a natural cause.
2. When applies to singularities, it is based on the false
premise that all causes are natural causes.
a. The First Cause of the universe was not.
b. Intelligent causes are not.
3. It is not the absence of evidence that calls for an
intelligent cause; It is the presence of specific evidence
that calls for an intelligent cause.
Science: Two Types
Forensic Science
Empirical Science
(Origin Science)
(Operation Science)
Studies the Past
Studies Singularities
Events are Unrepeatable
How Things Originate
Studies the Present
Studies Regularities
Events are Repeatable
How Things Operate
Different Principles
Causality
Uniformity (Analogy)
Observation
Repetition
Conclusion
1. It is wrong to use a “God-of-the-gaps” move in
empirical science (dealing with present regular
events (as Newton did).
2. It is not a “God-of-the-gap” fallacy to invoke
an intelligent cause of singular events that
show evidence of intelligent causality.
3. In fact, it is a “Nature-of-the gap” fallacy to
assume a natural cause in the face of evidence
for an intelligent cause (such as specified
complexity of first life and the anthropic
evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe).
“Nature-of-the-gap”
Fallacy
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are
against common sense is the key to understanding
the real struggle between [naturalistic] science and
the supernatural. We take the side of [naturalistic)
science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of
its constructs… because we have a prior
commitment to materialism. It is not that the
methods and institutions of science somehow
compel us to accept a materialistic explanation of
the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that
we are forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes…. Moreover that materialism is absolute
for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door”
(Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, 1/9/96).
Two Types of Causes
Natural
Intelligent
Water Falls
Power Plant
Crystals
Chandelier
Sand Dunes
Sand Castle
Round stones
Arrowheads
Clouds
Skywriting
There is no scientific evidence based on
observation and repetition in the present
for a natural cause of anything in the
right column!
Belief that God Exists:
Does Science Support It?
Former Atheist Francis Collins:
“The Big Bang cries out
for a divine explanation. It
forces us to the conclusion
that nature had a definite
beginning. I cannot see
how nature could have
created itself. Only a
supernatural force that is
outside of space and time
could have done that” (The
Language of God, 67).
World famous former “Those scientists who point
Atheist: Antony Flew to the Mind of God do not
merely advance a series of
arguments or a process of
syllogistic reasoning.
Rather, they propound a
vision of reality that
emerges from the
conceptual heart of modern
science and imposes itself
on the rational mind. It is a
vision that I personally find
compelling and irrefutable”
(p. 112).
I. Science Began With God
II. Science Departed from God
III. Science Returns to God
God was Rediscovered
• With A Big Bang -• In a Little Box
Some Scientist’s Initial
Reactions
• Arthur Eddington:
"Philosophically, the notion of
a beginning of the present
order of Nature is repugnant to
me…. I should like to find a
genuine loophole" (in Heeren,
81).
• Einstein: “This circumstance
[of an expanding Universe]
irritates me." And "To admit
such possibilities seems
senseless" Why? "I believe in
Other Reactions to a
Supernatural
Creator:
• Julian Huxley: "For my own part,
the sense of spiritual relief
which comes from rejecting the
idea of God as a supernatural
being is enormous..." (Huxley, RR,
32, emphasis added).
Friedrich Nietzsche: "If one
were to prove this God of the
Christians to us, we should be
even less able to believe in him"
St. Paul’s
Declaration:
• He speaks of those who
“…suppress the truth by their
wickedness because what may be
known about God is plain to
them, because God has made it
plain to them. For since the
creation of the world God's
invisible qualities--his
eternal power and divine
nature--have been clearly
seen, being understood from
Creation vs. Evolution:
The Scientific Evidence
Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2006
Age of Mammals
Age of
Reptiles
Age of Amphibians
Age of Fishes
Age of Invertebrates
Macroevolution - Unlimited Change
Does Similarity Prove a Common
or a Common Creator?
Ancestor
Does Progress Prove Evolution?
Or Does it Show Intelligent Intervention?
Suppose a Link is Missing
Suppose a Link is Missing
Does Finding it Prove Evolution?
Micro-Biologist Michael
Behe
"No one at Harvard University,
no one at the National Institutes
of Health, no member of the
National Academy of Sciences, no
Nobel prize winner--no one at all
can give a detailed account of how
the cilium, or vision, or blood
clotting, or any complex
biochemical process might have
developed in a Darwinian fashion."
He adds, "Other examples of
irreducible complexity abound,
including aspects of DNA
"The conclusion of
intelligent design flows
naturally from the data
itself--not from sacred books
or sectarian beliefs.
Inferring that biochemical
systems were designed by an
intelligent agent is a humdrum
process that requires no new
principles of logic or
science" (Behe, DBB, 193).
"Life on earth at its most
Atheism: Nothing
made something from
nothing!
Anthony Kenny: "A
proponent of [the big
bang] theory, at least
if he is an atheist,
must believe that the
matter of the universe
came form nothing and
Response to Methodological
Atheism
1.
It correctly limits scientific
understanding about the present
regularities to secondary (natural)
causes (Newton's "God-of-the-gap” is
wrong).
2. It correctly assumes principles of
causality and uniformity without
which we can’t know the past.
3. However, Laplace wrongly assumes
that:
a. All events need a natural cause.
b. Analogy calling for an
intelligent cause does
not
Failure to distinguish
origin and
operation science
Origin Science
Operation Science
About origin of things
About operation of
things
How things came about
How things
function
Past singularities
Present
regularities
Forensic science
Empirical science
Primary or secondary causes
Only secondary
causes
Based on:
Based on:
causality
observation
Hume’s Argument for
Naturalism (1748) used by
Laplace (1785f):
1. Natural laws describe regular
occurrences.
2. A miracle is by definition a rare
occurrence.
3. The evidence for the regular is
always greater
than that for the
rare.
4. Wise persons base their belief on
the greater
evidence.
5. Hence, wise persons should not
believe in miracles.
The Common
Denominator:
Hume’s Argument has a
false premise.
1. Natural laws
occurrences.
2. A miracle is
occurrence.
3. The evidence
always greater
rare.
4. Wise persons
the greater
describe regular
by definition a rare
for the regular is
than that for the
base their belief on
evidence.
A Response to Hume's
Argument:
Evidence for rare events can
be
greater:
Rare Events Accepted by
Naturalists:
A. Big Bang origin of the
universe.
B. Spontaneous generation of
first life.
A. The Fall of
Naturalism
• 1. The Cause beyond the universe
must be supernatural, since it
caused the entire natural world
from nothing (thus refuting
Laplace's naturalistic continuity
principle).
• 2. The evidence for a singularity
can be greater than for a
regularity (thus refuting Hume's
anti-supernaturalism).
• 3. The principles of regularity and
uniformity reveal that only an a
B. The Return to
Theism
Stephen Hawking: He described
how the value of many
fundamental numbers in
nature's laws "seem to have
been very finely adjusted to
make possible the
development of life" and how
God appears to have "very
carefully chosen the initial
The Blind Watch-Maker Objection
1. Life is not irreducibly
complex (It has parts).
2. Organisms like the eye had
other functions
3. Not all order calls for a
designer (cf.
Hurricanes)
Response:
1. This violates scientific
principle of regularity.
2. Nature can tear apart but not
put together.
3. Sight is not possible until
Imperfect Design Objection: World is
not a perfect design. Hence, it did not
have a perfect Designer.
Response:
1. The design does not have to be perfect to
need a Designer.
2. Perfect Designer can make less than
perfect designs (He may have more ability
than he uses).
3. Imperfections may not have been in the
original design (but in subsequent
tampering with it).
Objection of Endless
Designer: Every designer
needs a designer. There
is no first Designer.
Response:
1. Every cause does not
need a cause; only every
effect does.
2. Every designer does not
need a cause; only every
design does.
3. Everything does not
Objection based on
chance: Chance
combinations over long
periods of time can
account for complexity.
Response:
1. Chance does not cause
anything; only forces do.
2. Principle of regularity
shows natural forces do
not produce life’s
complexity.
The Return to Theism
Behe: "The result of these
cumulative efforts to
investigate the cell--to
investigate life at the
molecular level--is a loud,
clear, piercing cry of
'design!' The result is so
unambiguous and so significant
that it must be ranked as one
of the greatest achievements
Either Creation or Spontaneous Generation
“Either life was created on the earth by the will
of a being outside the grasp of scientific
understanding, or it evolved on our planet
spontaneously, through chemical reactions
occurring in non-living matter lying on the
surface of our planet” (Jastrow, Until the Sun
Dies, 62).
Noble Prize-winning biologist George Wald
added, “there is no third position” (Wald,
“The Origin of Life,” in Life: Origin and
Evolution, 1979, ed. T. E. Fulsom).
Does Life Have a Natural Cause?
Miller-Urey Experiment 1953
Many Intelligent Choices
1. The apparatus
2. The Chemicals
3. The Electrode
4. Eliminating the
oxygen
5. Heating and
cooling
Results: Chemicals; No
life!
Spontaneous Generation of First
Life is not Scientific
1. It is contrary to empirical science (Redi and Pasteur
disproved it).
2. The Chemicals they used didn’t exist in early earth in
those concentrations.
3. Oxygen excluded existed in early earth.
4. It had illegitimate investigator
interference.
5. They ignored destructive forces.
6. The results were not a living organism.
No Spontaneous Generation
• Brooks and Shaw: “In fact no such materials
have been found anywhere on earth” (Origins
and Development of Living Systems, 396).
• William Day: “A curious flaw of human nature
is to permit the imagery of a catchy phrase to
shape one’s reasoning. Haldane’s hot dilute soup
became “primordial soup,” a feature that has
been popularized for nearly fifty years without
geological evidence that it ever existed” (Genesis
on Planet Earth, 231-232).
The Eye Made Darwin Shudder
Spinoza in brief:
1. Miracles are violations
of
natural laws.
2. Natural laws are
immutable.
3. It is impossible to
violate
immutable
laws.
4. Therefore, miracles are
Response to Spinoza:
1. It begs the question to
assume that natural laws
are immutable.
2.It is based on an outdated
"closed" view of the
universe (exceptions are
possible in an "open"
universe).
3.Natural laws don’t
prescribe what can occur;
but only describe what does
Laplace: No Creation or
Miracles
"The calculus of probabilities
... appreciates the greatest
improbability of testimonies in
regard to extraordinary facts."
And "there are things so
extraordinary that nothing can
balance their improbability." Such
are the claims for miracles.
Hence, "One may judge by this the
immense weight of testimonies
necessary to admit a suspension of
Reason for This Conclusion
Principle of Continuity would rule out
creation—There was no beginning
Principle of Analogy would rule out
miracles—No supernatural causes in
the present.
Thus, all causes in nature would be
natural causes = no Creator!
However, if the universe has a
beginning, then this naturalistic
conclusion would not follow because:
1. There would be a first Cause
beyond the natural world.
2. This Cause would have to be
super-natural.
B. The Return to
Theism
Behe: "The result of these
cumulative efforts to
investigate the cell--to
investigate life at the
molecular level--is a loud,
clear, piercing cry of
'design!' The result is so
unambiguous and so
significant that it must be
ranked as one of the greatest
achievements in the history