Can Science Prove God?

Atheists, agnostics, and perhaps even believers who are sometimes plagued with doubt about God’s existence desire evidence that He exists. More specifically, those who have serious doubts demand empirical evidence for God’s existence, rational handling of that evidence, and welcome healthy skepticism. This is the pattern for critical thinking. Some say this pattern is the essence of the scientific method. But people who doubt God’s existence often reject empirical evidence and rationality, and thereby continue in their state of doubt.

There is plentiful empirical evidence which points to a pre-existing Cause for the ordered, fine-tuned complexity of both physical constants and life forms in this universe. Such empirical evidence, such as the coding of information in the DNA molecule, is well-documented and amply reported in thousands of available sources. In the sphere of rationality there have been many ontological arguments for the existence of God proposed for hundreds of years. These arguments are essentially “thought experiments” which attempt to solve a problem using only the power of human reason and intuition. They do not rely on any empirical data (sense-based experiences).

Scientists who claim “Nature is all there is” commonly accept many unseen causes to explain observed effects, including, for example, many types of electromagnetic radiation which penetrate solid bodies, the universe’s dark matter which is inferred to be responsible for the missing mass of the universe, and even the yet undetected Higgs boson, thought to account for the mass of other particles. The Higgs boson is the missing puzzle piece of the “standard model” of matter. Scientists have searched vigorously, and still search, for the difficult answers concerning cause. But when incontrovertible evidence reveals exquisite design features of the universe and life forms, doubters take a pass on the possibility of a supernatural causative agent. This is not because plentiful and convincing evidence is missing. Perhaps it is because they prefer not to acknowledge an intelligent Creator.

Atheists, of course, do not believe Genesis 1:1, which says, “In the beginning, God…” They believe only matter and energy existed “in the beginning,” or perhaps that matter and energy always existed. Given this, they claim matter and mechanisms, not an intelligent agent, brought the universe and life’s complexity to reality. They claim theism is irrational, but how rational is it to embrace the idea that uncaused, random process brought this universe into existence? Doesn’t this belief involve irrational faith? John Lennox states, “The biblical view that the same rational Creator is responsible for both the universe and the human mind gives a coherent explanation of why we can, at least in part, understand the universe around us is such a way as to make science possible.”

John 1:1-2 (NIV) is a most succinct expression of creation theology. It describes Christ (in Greek logos means agent of reason): “In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

Science vs. Theology

Generating enthusiasm for understanding the benefits of the intersection between science and faith is a difficult undertaking. The reasons for this are complex, but worth our effort to understand. Acquiring knowledge of scientific principles and scientific discoveries often has a low priority in the pulpit and educational curriculum of our churches. Pastors and teachers feel, rightfully so, that the message of salvation and our daily relationship with God is paramount. Pastors feel more comfortable with these aspects of their instructional responsibility, perhaps because they are more familiar with these topics. But they neglect an existing pillar of faith which could serve to strengthen support for actual belief and faith in God. That pillar is the knowledge of how God designed the cosmos with consistent, discoverable laws and principles as the operational plan for humanity’s home. We discover these laws through our rational mind. To discover, rationally and scientifically, how nature operates is to discover how God operates.

Theology was once known as “The Queen of the Sciences.” John Lennox (October 10 post) has told us, “The biblical world-view played a key role in the meteoric rise of science in 16th and 17th century Europe. The pioneers of modern science, far from regarding their faith in God as a hindrance to their research, found that it was a positive stimulus.” Lennox continues, “The more they discovered of the law-governed universe, the more they worshipped its law-giving creator.” But science and theology have lost this mutually supportive relationship in the last 150 years. This is because science, generally, has taken a significant turn toward naturalism during that time. I quote from paleontologist Niles Eldredge: “If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena…it’s simply a matter of definition--of what is science, and what is not.”

The opposing views of these two famous people remind us of the world-view battle we confront. On one side: naturalistic scientists who deny that the rationality of science principles and truths reflects the character of a creator. On the other side: Christian practitioners of science and Christian science teachers who see that the discoveries of science point to the Creator and are helpful in identifying His divine nature. And finally, caught in the middle: pastors, church school teachers, and youth leaders who are fearful of the world-view-filtered conclusions of some scientists, and whose expertise prevents what could be a powerful apologetic for the existence of the author of creation. The commonality among these groups lies in in their respective searches for truth.

Science vs. Faith

Let’s explore why so many people of faith view the role of science somewhat suspiciously while building their apologetic system for scriptural Christianity. Perhaps it is because many in the science field have convinced the public that the conclusions of science are “rational” while faith is blind and “irrational.” The very term scientific has acquired an aura of respectability. Therefore, to proclaim a belief unscientific casts that belief in an unfavorable light. The choice of words and their use according to a dominant, perceived meaning becomes a powerful tool of persuasion.

Another example is the role of faith. Many articles are written about the conflict between science and religion, or between science and faith. In the minds of many people, the two terms are not complementary, but mutually exclusive. This idea has been relentlessly promoted in our society as the NOMA principle (non-overlapping magisteria). Part of the confusion rests with the tendency to define faith too narrowly. The term is used by some as if its only meaning involves the embrace of beliefs without either evidence or logical thought. But there is an additional, preferable meaning that is more appropriate: faith must be thought of as an evidence-based belief system.
On October 4, 2007 this blog reported on a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, Christian apologist and scientist. To Dawkins, who claimed that faith is blind and science is evidence-based, Lennox countered that faith is clearly evidence-based and stated, “It is the very nature of science that leads me to belief in God.” This statement has enormous power. It should be the framework of every Christian’s belief system. Moreover, we should strive to search for and report on the abundant evidence for the existence of a Creator. As a career science educator, I was in the advantaged position of seeing and understanding, close-up, mountains of evidence for abundant design and fine-tuning characteristics in the world of nature, from the micro-cosmos to the macro-cosmos. I will confess that this extensive knowledge of design and fine-tuning, while not rising to the level of explicit evidence demanded by pure naturalists, has had an impact on this science educator. My faith in the Creator is evidence-based.

Hebrews 11:1-3 (NIV) expresses, more perfectly, my faith: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

Diverse Origins Views

There is spirited disagreement among proponents of ID (intelligent design), theistic creationism, and naturalistic evolution. Discovery Institute is a well-known think tank perhaps best known for advocacy of ID, but without identifying the designer. There are many theistic creationist organizations that support varied proposals of direct, theistic intervention to account for the existence and characteristics of earth and its life forms. Reasons to Believe (RTB), for example, is a day-age creationist organization. They identify the God of Judeo-Christian scripture as the designer and Creator. Evolutionists generally state that earth and its life developed without direct intervention from any theistic agent. ID and creationist advocates have similar, but not identical positions in their interactions with evolutionists, who claim neither ID nor creationism is science because they propose the agency of a scientifically non-testable entity and fail to present a coherent scientific model.

All three viewpoints mainly agree that science uses the methodology of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion in evaluating theories and models. Disagreement among the camps centers on recognition of an agent or cause which brought everything into existence. The battle cry of evolutionists is that since both ID and creationism are religion, not science, neither has a place in venues where the history of the universe, its life, and its processes are taught, such as school science classes. Many emotionally-charged court cases in the past few decades have involved attempts to have ID or creationism included for discussion in the science classroom.

Readers may be surprised to discover that some creationist organizations, such as RTB, join with evolutionists in claiming that ID is not science. They say the concept of ID is merely a set of tools which can be used to support an alternative to the paradigm of evolution, much the way a microscope is a tool to help us form our theories about cell biology. Dr. Fazale Rana, who outlined these ideas in a recent RTB publication, hopes that ID can become science by developing an explanatory model of life’s origin, history, and diversity. Discovery Institute would disagree, claiming ID uses the scientific method to make its claims. Evolutionists use their non-science argument effectively to generate unwarranted disrespect for including and integrating ID and creationism within our view of what is true and real.

The Reasons to Believe organization has been in the forefront of efforts to develop a creation model. RTB has long promoted developing a creation model rather than merely pointing out weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Their model includes testability and making predictions to validate the hypothesis, theory, or model, and to provide a framework for organizing and making sense of observations. Unsuccessful predictions would necessitate model revision and even possible rejection of the model. Their proposals are hallmarks of good science. RTB president Dr. Hugh Ross develops a welcome, coherent scientific model of creation in his recently published book Creation as Science. The science community would do well to give the RTB model careful attention.

Consider the Ant

The Bible is not a textbook on science, but a well known passage in Proverbs 6:6-8 is an accurate and insightful commentary on the ant, possibly the world's most important insect. Without ants, some entire ecosystems would be destroyed. Many of the roughly 10,000 ant species already identified have unique behaviors which inspire awe, respect, and even admiration. The nuisance factor many associate with ants in everyday life might be more easily overlooked with a proper knowledge of what these creatures accomplish. We could make similar statements about many other insects.

Young children possess an inherent fascination with insects. This summer, two arenas of excitement developed for our grandchildren just a few steps from our front door. Little black ants were excavating tunnels and piling mounds of soil particles next to the entrances of their underground passageways and caverns. Hundreds of ants came and went, following their scent trails, intently engaged in their mysterious activities. Nearby, another scenario unfolded as we watched our "pet" digger wasp provisioning her underground home with anesthetized grasshoppers and katydids for her larvae-to-be. After the wasp lost its unease with our presence, we watched it efficiently drag its prey into the opening and alternately fill and re-excavate its tunnel, part of its many genetically programmed activities.

Ants are astonishingly successful members of the insect world. In their complex society, all members of the colony remain frantically busy caring for their young, finding various foods, aerating, enriching, and draining the soil, and recycling dead material. Descriptions of the unusual habits of some specialized ant species would fill multiple chapters in an adventure book. One encyclopedic description claims ants enable us to "learn much about diligence, efficiency, sacrifice, loyalty, and teamwork."

What does Proverbs 6 tell us about the ant? Various Bible translations of this passage use the ant to counsel the sluggard, the slothful, and the lazy. Eugene Peterson's The Message translation pleads "You lazy fool, look at the ant. Watch it closely; let it teach you a thing or two. Nobody has to tell it what to do. All summer it stores up food; at harvest it stockpiles provisions." This is a scripture of enormous insight. Its lessons apply not only to the lazy, but they also serve as a model of successful living for everyone.

Science Journalism

Scientists often enlist the help of journalists to communicate their exciting reasearch and discovery in popular media outlets. These journalists attempt to make difficult concepts accessible and fascinating to the layperson. More often than not, the journalists are not scientists. Even so, this arrangement has advantages for both the scientists and the public.

In a speech to the Association of Science Writers in Washington, D. C., John H. Marburger III, presidential adviser and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, acknowledged that "science writers are part of the machinery of science itself, and bear some responsibility, along with the scientists themselves, for getting it right." He reminded the journalists of the "serious problems" they face as they write on "a subject that is not well defined." The danger of exploitation "by many contending and overlapping factions within society" is a very real danger for science journalists.

Marburger counselled the science writers that the language of science is arcane. Since language carries with it a world view, objectivity is necessary as science is explained to the public. Confusion between theory and what is really happening leads to the temptation to inject one's own experience and prejudice into the communication medium. Advocacy power games are easy to play: vindicating the underdog, becoming overly sentimental, or magnifying perceived abuses, for example. Finally, science journalists are challenged more by explaining how science works than by science's actual content.

Several dozen writers of Holy Scripture may have faced similar challenges in conveying their messages. God-inspired scripture is the backbone of special revelation, the written revelation of God to humanity. This was achieved even though individual literary styles were manifest in their writings. Scripture authors reveal who God is and what He wants man to know about Himself.

The task of science journalists is not nearly so lofty. However, accuracy, precision, and conveyance of truth are paramount goals. When discovering the God-authored truth about the workings of nature's laws, scientists work within strict procedural guidelines. Gifted journalists who convey the truth and significance of scientific discoveries to the public must also strive for adherence to strict guidelines.

The God Particle

Nobel prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman wrote a book in 1993 entitled The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question? Since then, “God Particle” has come to be the familiar and endearing term for the elusive Higgs boson, a missing piece of the puzzle in the “Standard Model.” This is modern scientists’ description of the fundamental particles which compose all matter. The Higgs boson was predicted in 1964 by theoretical physicist Peter Higgs.

In the past few weeks, the public’s attention has been riveted on a monumental scientific event--a heroic but costly effort to find evidence that “The God Particle” actually exists. Science journalists have thrilled their readers with reports of the most startling, bizarre, and speculative elements of the story. The event is the September 10 start-up of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on the border of France and Switzerland. After two decades, billions of dollars, and the efforts of many thousands of people, the LHC has finally come on line. This is the largest and most expensive science experiment ever. It was financed and built by a consortium of European nations. A similar experiment was begun in Texas in the United States, but was cancelled by Congress in 1993 because of its enormous cost. Scientists hope the LHC will also make discoveries about dark matter, conditions at the moment of the Big Bang, the “theory of everything,” and extra dimensions.

Many adults recall learning that the fundamental particles of matter were electrons, protons, and neutrons. But starting in the 1960s, that picture changed. Protons and neutrons were found to be composed of quarks. There are six “flavors” of quarks. Matter is also composed of six different “flavors” of leptons. The familiar electron is only one of the six leptons. Finally, there are force-carrying particles for the four universal forces. This Standard Model is a very successful theory of matter which accounts for many observations we make in our physical world. If the Standard Model were represented as a jigsaw puzzle depicting a beautiful nature scene, the scene would be reasonably complete and comprehensible, save for a region where the puzzle was missing some pieces we know should fit there. Particle physicists believe the Higgs boson is the hypothetical missing Standard Model “puzzle piece” that causes other particles to have mass.

Let’s return to the popular “God particle” idea. For many scientists, discovery of the God of creation, or even concern about a Creator, takes a back seat to their discoveries about the creation itself. Their concerns are more along the lines of “What are the fundamental characteristics of matter and energy?” and “What laws govern the operation of all things, living as well as non-living?” Thousands of other questions drive scientists’ quest for knowledge in hundreds of specialized fields of investigation. They are fascinated with the unknowns, and seek to convert unknowns to knowns. But there is hardly any theological speculation within science, because the field of science has been naturalistically framed. On rare occasions, however, faint glimmers of ontological curiosity creep into their writing. Perhaps they really wonder, or perhaps such writing more effectively evokes wonder and interest for their readers. In A Brief History of Time, Steven Hawking speaks of “knowing the mind of God.” Astronomer George Smoot, after the COBE satellite revealed its startling findings in 1992, said, “It’s like looking at God.” Brian Greene in The Elegant Universe wonders if the seemingly random mass quantities for fundamental particles occurred “by some divine choice.” And even though Albert Einstein denied a personal God, he thought God brought the universe into existence.

The God Particle? Is the phrase a mere literary device? Or does it signal a more fundamental longing for mankind to understand the wonders of reality? Truth is defined as that which is “really real.” The question of what is “really real” reaches far beyond the reality of the particle itself.