Science is regarded by many as an enemy of faith – as if the two are mutually exclusive. In my ongoing discussions with sceptics I often hear the view expressed, “I don’t believe in God and religion; I choose to believe science instead”. My response to this is to say that I believe in evidence-based science too, and that is why I believe in God. Instead of undermining a belief in God, science is increasingly revealing evidence of a supernatural, intelligent cause for our universe and for the existence of biological life.
………………………………………………………………….
RESOURCES:
VIDEO SERIES: EVIDENCE FOR BELIEF
PODCAST SERIES: EVIDENCE FOR BELIEF
…………………………………………………
There is a popular misconception that must be addressed; the idea that faith and science do not mix. According to outspoken atheist and evolutionist, Dr. Richard Dawkins:
“Not only is science corrosive to religion; religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural non-explanations and blinds them to the wonderful real explanations that we have within our grasp. It teaches them to accept authority, revelation and faith instead of always insisting on evidence.”[i]
According to Richard Dawkins and many like him, science is the realm of facts, evidence and truth, whereas faith is the realm of unsubstantiated, unverifiable superstition and myths. Thus, science and faith are the antithesis of each other; like matter and anti-matter, they cannot exist together. According to this view, a person cannot subscribe to the realms of faith and science simultaneously; one must choose one or the other.
Regarding the relationship between faith and science, there are two ill-informed views:
1. The False View That Science and Faith are at War
This is a much more common view today than it was in the past, partly because of the advent of the new militant atheism. However, as we shall see shortly, many of the great scientists of the past were people of strong Christian faith, who saw no conflict between their belief in God and their scientific studies. Much of the currently perceived hostility between science and faith has arisen because of the aggressive and very public campaigns of militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Bill Nye, who have proactively sought to belittle religious faith and portray it as unscientific. They deliberately portray faith as the enemy of science, and depict those who have faith as being fools.
However, this view of the inherent antipathy between science and faith is directly contradicted by the existence of many scientists of faith. There are many eminent and respected scientists today who are anything but fools, and they would strongly disagree that their faith is in conflict with their scientific endeavours. In fact, many would say that their faith actually enhances their scientific study of the natural world. For example, astrophysicist Dr. Jennifer Wiseman, the discoverer of the Wiseman-Skiff comet in 1987, states:
“By studying nature, I enrich my understanding of God.”[ii]
2. The False View That Science and Faith are Completely Unrelated
This false view sometimes goes hand in hand with the first. According to this view, science and faith deal with completely separate realms, and as long as they are kept separate, no harm is done. Thus, science deals with the natural world, whereas faith deals with the supernatural world. As long as faith remembers its place, and does not attempt to cross over into the domain of science, it can be tolerated. But if it starts to impinge upon the natural world, and influence our interpretation of the scientific evidence, it is out of line and must return to its corner. Faith must not seek to interfere with scientific endeavours, and must remain subservient to science when it comes to interpreting the observable natural world.
This attitude can manifest itself in a benign form and a more judgmental, condescending form. The benign form states; both the natural and supernatural realms are valid but must be kept separate. In other words, the two realms are distinct and must have no interconnection. This dualist view of the universe, however, is not supported by the Bible. If there is a God who has created the universe, he is not completely separate from it. He did not create the physical universe and then abandon it to return to his supernatural realm. The Bible portrays God as transcendent (above and beyond the created universe), but also intimately involved with his universe, and with mankind in particular. The physical and the spiritual are overlapping realms. People are physical and spiritual beings at the same time. The natural world continues to be sustained and energised by the life-giving Spirit who created it. To separate the physical from the spiritual, the natural from the supernatural, is to make a distinction that the Bible simply does not make.
The more judgmental, condescending form of the view of the incompatibility of science and faith states; belief in a supernatural realm is superstitious nonsense, but as long as it keeps its distance, we don’t mind. An example of this more condescending form is evident in an article entitled “Science and Faith are Not Compatible”, by Sean Carroll in “Discover Magazine”, published on 23rd June 2009:
“The incompatibility between science and religion doesn’t mean that a person can’t be religious and be a good scientist. That would be a silly claim to make. There is no problem at all with individual scientists holding all sorts of incorrect beliefs.”[iii]
What an extraordinarily condescending comment to make! According to this view, you can still be a good scientist and have a religious faith – as long as you leave your faith at the door when you get to work, along with your belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Underlying this view is the presupposition that the supernatural realm is not “real”, and that science has somehow proved it thus. This brings us to a discussion of the fundamental nature and limits of science, because in issuing these kinds of judgments upon the realm of faith, science has completely overstepped its own boundaries.
THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE AND LIMITS OF SCIENCE
The British Science Council, a body that oversees the standards for professional registration of practising scientists across all disciplines, defines science in the following way:
“Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.”[iv]
It then lists the major methodologies that define the practice of science, which include:
- Objective observation and measurement of data.
- Induction (formulating theories to explain that data).
- Repetition (the ability to replicate and verify what is theorised).
- Verification (testing and critiquing a theory against results to establish its validity).
In particular, please note that science is the study of evidence and data that is observable, measurable and repeatable. The study of gravity is a good example. Isaac Newton and others observed the effects of gravity. They then measured its effect and, through induction, calculated a formula to precisely describe its action. Then through repeated experiments, they verified their formula as an accurate description of gravity’s operation.
Let me reiterate: Science is the study of evidence and data that is observable, measurable and repeatable. Immediately, this places limits on what science can and cannot comment on. Pure, experimental science cannot claim to be able to verify, or otherwise, anything that is not observable, measurable and repeatable. It simply cannot comment on things that are intangible. For example, science cannot make any comments on the existence and nature of love. It may measure and analyse physiological responses of people who claim to experience love – elevated heart rate, the production of endorphins, increased metabolic rates, changes in brain activity – but it cannot measure love itself, nor can it offer any judgment as to whether love actually exists. Because love is intangible. Love cannot be measured, weighed, poked, prodded or photographed. Thus, all science can say is that it can observe and measure physiological phenomena in the natural world that are consistent with the existence of love, but it cannot offer any form of ultimate proof of love’s existence.
Exactly the same is true of science’s relationship to faith and to the possible existence of God. The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary defines God as:
“The incorporeal [non-physical] divine Principle ruling over all as the eternal Spirit”[v]
While I take exception to the description of God as being a “Principle” (because he is a personal, all-powerful being, not merely a principle), this dictionary definition does at least accord with the Bible’s description of God as being “incorporeal” (without a physical form) and an “eternal spirit”. If we accept these descriptions of God, then science is immediately ruled out of offering anykind of ultimate judgment regarding either God’s existence or his nature. If an “incorporeal, eternal Spirit” exists, he lies completely outside the parameters of scientific speculation. He cannot be measured, weighed, poked, prodded or photographed. Science can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence.
On the other hand, if a Creator God exists, it is entirely reasonable to expect to find traces of his creative handiwork in the fabric of the physical universe. If the universe was created by an all-powerful, intelligent designer, albeit an intangible, supernatural one, we should expect to be able to observe evidence of his creative design and intervention within the natural realm. Just as in the case of something intangible such as love, while God himself cannot be observed and measured, it should be possible to observe his effects.
Science, therefore, cannot offer any authoritative declarations on the existence or otherwise of intangibles such as love and God. All science can do is comment on observed effects that these two intangibles may produce in the natural world. To go beyond this, in declaring either absolute proof or disproof, is to exceed the parameters of science itself.
Thus, when people such as Sean Carroll, in his article “Science and Faith are Not Compatible” (quoted above) comments that a scientist who has a faith in God has an “incorrect belief”, he has stepped completely outside the defined parameters of science and made a judgment that science is not qualified to make. Science is simply not equipped to make absolute, definitive judgments about the existence of something outside of the natural world.
When a scientist says that it is unscientific to believe in God, it is he or she who is being unscientific. A scientist may profess to disbelieve in God, but to appeal to science as the basis for that unbelief makes as much sense as someone saying that he does not believe in microbes because he cannot see them with his binoculars. Binoculars are entirely the wrong instrument for finding microbes, and science is entirely the wrong instrument for finding God. Microbes will be completely invisible to binoculars, as will the transcendent God be to science (in the sense of ultimate, irrefutable proof). Both exist beyond the scope of their respective instruments to detect.
The Inability of Science to Prove Non-Existence
Because science is limited to studying only those things that can be observed and measured, it cannot prove that something does notexist. In this sense, it cannot prove an absolute, universal negative. All science can say is that, to date, a certain thing has not been observed. Take, for example, the possible existence of aliens. Some scientists believe that intelligent aliens may exist somewhere in the universe. In fact, there exists a scientific research program which is attempting to locate intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy; SETI (the Search For Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). To date, they have not located any signs of alien life. If, at some point in the future, some kind of contact is made – transmissions are received, or visual confirmation is gained – then it can be said that science has proved that aliens DO exist. Science can prove a positive.
But suppose astronomers search the cosmos in vain for a thousand years without any trace of extra-terrestrial life. Can science then authoritatively declare, “We have proved that aliens do not exist”? No. Because the very next day an alien spaceship may land on Bondi Beach and the crew emerge for a summer holiday. All science can say is, “We have not yet observed aliens”. Science cannot prove the universal non-existence of something; it cannot prove a universal negative, in this sense. I say, “in this sense”, because some universal negatives can be proven if they are defined by very specific parameters. For example, the statement, “No bachelors are married”, is a universal negative that is entirely provable, because the conclusion is implicit in the predicate. Similarly, the statement, “There are no full-blood Inuit Indians enrolled at Epping Boys High School this year” is also provable (or disprovable), via examination of the enrolment register and DNA testing. In this case, the means of either proving or disproving the negative are accessible and achievable.
But science can never claim, “aliens do not exist”, because the proof of that universal negative would necessitate examining every corner of the universe – every planet, asteroid, rock and star – with every possible detection mechanism. I am not saying that I believe in aliens! I am simply pointing out that, in this example, the means of proving a universal negative are well beyond the reach of science.
In the same way, science can never claim, “God does not exist”, because the means of proving that claim is also beyond the reach of science. All science can say is “We have not yet observed God”. In the case of aliens, of course, a thousand years of fruitless searching should lead scientists to believe that aliens probably don’t exist, because physical beings inhabiting the physical universe are well within the scope of science to reasonably detect. If aliens have not been detected after a thousand years of searching among the galaxies that are closest to us, there is a very strong probability that they don’t exist anywhere. In the case of God, however, scientists should not be at all surprised at their inability to detect him, as he lies completely beyond the scope of their ability to perceive him.
It is truly surprising, therefore, when scientists who continue to believe in aliens, despite a lack of observable evidence, are regarded as reasonable, rational people, whereas scientists who continue to believe in God, with the support of some fairly convincing observable evidence (as we shall see in the next chapter), are often denigrated and even persecuted. The 2008 documentary film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”,[vi] reported the cases of several scientists who were sacked from their positions simply because of their belief in intelligent design.
Given these two limitations of science, its inability to prove a negative and its inability to study anything beyond the natural world, it is truly remarkable that many scientists feel competent to make authoritative declarations about the non-existence of God. Dr. Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion”, is a dismissive and, at times, sarcastic denunciation of belief in God as Creator.[vii]The title of the book is indicative of his major theme; that people who believe in God are delusional. Furthermore, he argues that you cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still believe in a Creator God. In fact, he states that people who have such a faith are “infantile”.[viii] Yet, in reality, science is not equipped to make any authoritative declarations on the matter of God’s existence. The subject simply lies beyond the realm of science’s ability to comment.
Sadly, Dr. Dawkins is not the only scientist who ventures beyond the limits of science. For example, Dr. D. M. Watson made the extraordinary statement:
“Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, ‘special creation’, is clearly incredible.”[ix]
The mistake that Drs. Dawkins, Watson and others make, is to assume that because science can only observe and measure things in the natural, physical realm, no other realm exists. That is a completely illogical leap of reasoning. It is one thing to say that science can only measure natural causes for phenomena; it is quite another to insist that no other causes exist. In fact, that is a completely unscientific assumption. Science simply cannot prove that there are no supernatural causes of phenomena in our universe. As Timothy Keller states:
“There would be no experimental model for testing the statement: ‘No supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible’.”[x]
Science simply cannot say, “nature is all there is.” That is a completely unprovable proposition. Sadly, however, many atheistic scientists regularly make this very assertion. For example, Sean Carroll, in the previously quoted article, “Science and Religion are Not Compatible”, makes the extraordinary comment:
“Scientifically speaking, the existence of God is an untenable hypothesis.”[xi]
By this, he means that belief in God is unacceptable scientifically. He then goes on to say, of scientists who persist in their belief in God:
“Those people are just wrong!”[xii]
These are completely unscientific declarations. The existence of God is not an untenable hypothesis, it is an untestable hypothesis, for it lies outside of science’s ability to ultimately prove.
Similarly, just as science cannot say that God does not exist, neither can it say that miracles do not occur. All an individual scientist can say is, “To date, I have not observed or measured a miracle.” Of course, a miracle would require the temporary suspension or alteration of one or more laws of science, through the intervention of forces beyond the natural realm. Science cannot say, however, that such an intervention and a suspension of the laws cannot happen. If God exists, then the natural laws are merely the normal means by which he sustains the universe. If there is an all-powerful, transcendent God who is underwriting and upholding these natural laws, he is entirely capable of bypassing any one of them, or all of them, momentarily. Certainly, from a faith perspective, the God who is able to create the universe from nothing is more than capable of any and all further interventional creative acts.
Science, therefore, cannot issue authoritative declarations that miracles are not possible, because:
- It cannot prove a universal negative, and;
- It cannot comment on the supernatural realm – because science is incapable of observing and measuring it.
It is disappointing, therefore, to read comments such as Sean Carroll’s, in his article “Science and Faith Are Not Compatible”:
“Science and religion are incompatible … Religion ends up saying things like ‘Jesus died and was resurrected’ or ‘Moses parted the red sea’. And science says none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility.”[xiii]
No Sean, science does not say “none of that is true”. You say that, but science doesn’t. In fact, science can’t say that. Science has no authority to comment on things beyond its scope of study, nor can it prove a universal negative in that sense.
The Inability of Science to Travel Back in Time
Just as science cannot investigate the supernatural realm, it is also not able to observe events in the past. Science is stuck in the present. It can only observe and measure things that exist in the present. Forensic science can observe and measure artefacts from the past (such as rocks and fossils), and make assumptions about past events based on those artefacts, but those assumptions can never be proven in an absolute scientific sense, because those past events can no longer be observed, measured and repeated in the present. Radiometric dating of rocks is a good example. Science cannot authoritatively tell us how old rocks are. Rocks do not have a date stamp, and apart from rocks formed in recent lava flows, no scientist was alive to witness the formation of rocks in the past. All science can do is observe and measure rocks in the present. They can measure the current composition of rocks and the current decay rates of isotopes, but they have no way of knowing:
- decay rates in the distant past.
- the original composition of rocks and the ratios of parent isotopes to daughter isotopes in the past.
- processes that could have added additional elements to rocks in the past.
- processes that could have removed elements from rocks in the past.
The reason why science cannot know these things is because scientists cannot travel back in time to the past. Thus, when scientists make authoritative declarations about the ages of rocks, they are making huge assumptions about processes in the past for which they have no conclusive evidence. Science faces the same limitations when it comes to fossils. All scientists can do is observe and study fossils in the present. They cannot make authoritative declarations about dates and causes of extinction, because no scientist was there to observe those events.
Forensic science is a sub-genre of science that is dedicated to studying non-observable events of the past, by examining residual evidence in the present. It incorporates estimations and assumptions about past environmental factors and past precipitating factors in order to arrive at a possible explanation and interpretation of the residual evidence in the present. The further back in time the original event took place, the more assumptions and estimates that have to be made, and the less reliable the interpretations become. It is staggering to me, therefore, that evolutionists claim to be able to make authoritative, absolute declarations about events that supposedly took place millions of years ago! It is also remarkable how often scientists have had to modify or even overturn these declarations, as new theories emerge.
Historical Verification
The one exception, the one time when scientists can make absolute, authoritative statements about the past, is when people werepresent to witness the events, and left behind accurate, verifiable historical records for us to read. I stress the words “accurate” and verifiable”, because historical records, before they can be relied upon, must be proven to be accurate. The professionally accepted means by which historical documents are assessed for reliability is referred to as the Criteria of Historical Reliability. I have written about these criteria in detail in my book, “Finding God When He Seems To Be Hiding”. The criteria include:
- The Criterion of Time Gap
- The Criterion of Embarrassment
- The Criterion of Multiple Attestation
- The Criterion of The Absence of Protestation
- The Criterion of Corroboration by Hostile Critics
- The Criterion of Author Credibility
Once historical accounts have been verified using these criteria, scientists are then, and only then, able to make authoritative declarations about past events. Thus, scientists can state with absolute certainty that Mt. Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD, even though it happened 2,000 years ago and no scientist alive today was there to witness it. This is because the written historical records describing the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius have been verified using the criteria of historical reliability.
It will come as a surprise to many people to learn that the same criteria of historical reliability that verify the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, also verify the historical accounts of the life, miracles and resurrection of Jesus. Multiple accounts, written by eyewitnesses, within the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, including multiple corroborating accounts by hostile critics apart from the Bible, pass the same criteria of reliability with flying colours. These accounts lead us to conclude that Jesus did exist, that he didwork extraordinary miracles, and that he did rise from the dead. In fact there is much more written historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead than for the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius!
Scientists who accept events such as the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius as an established scientific and historical fact, but dismiss the resurrection and miracles of Jesus as myth, are guilty of filtering the evidence through their preconceived biases. Effectively, they are saying, “miracles can’t happen, because there is no such thing as the supernatural.” As we have already noted, however, such a presupposition is completely unscientific. The existence, or otherwise, of supernatural forces, lies beyond the ability of science to comment. Scientists who make these kinds of declarations are operating from a position of prejudicial personal bias rather than from evidence-based science.
The Fallibility of Science
Another misconception regarding the nature of science is in regard to its reliability. There is a common tendency among the general populace to regard all scientific declarations as absolute, irrefutable facts. Once a declaration is identified as having come from “science” or “scientists”, it is immediately elevated to the status of incontestable truth. Often scientists themselves perpetuate this attitude. For instance, in the Introduction to Jerry A. Coyne’s “Why Science and Religion are Incompatible”, Neil DeGrasse-Tyson wrote:
“The good thing about science is that it’s true, whether you believe it or not.”[xiv]
This is simply not correct. Facts are true, whether or not you believe them. Science, on the other hand, has an impressive track record of getting the facts wrong and having to retract previously published declarations. Here are some notable examples of scientific “facts”, once declared authoritatively to the world, but now known to be false:
- The earth is the centre of the solar system. Contrary to popular belief, it was not just the church that believed this and opposed Nicolaus Copernicus’s heliocentric model, but the whole of the scientific community who had previously stated unequivocally that the solar system revolved around the earth. The church was simply trusting the weight of previously established scientific opinion.
- Spontaneous generation of life (as previously discussed). Scientists in the middle ages believed and taught that maggots arose spontaneously from rotting meat, frogs from stagnant ponds, earthworms from manure and mice from warm, moist soil.
If you think these kinds of errors were only endemic in medieval science, you are mistaken. Literally dozens of scientific “facts” presented authoritatively to us in recent decades have now been disproven. For example;
- There are nine planets in the solar system. Science now tells us that there are only eight planets, as Pluto has been downgraded.
- The dinosaurs became extinct because of volcanic eruptions. Scientists now believe that asteroid strikes were more likely the cause.
- Neanderthals were pre-humans who died out prior to the advent of modern humans. It is now known that Neanderthals were just a variation of modern humans, living at the same time.
- The “missing links” of human ancestry. All of these have now been discredited. (See Chapter 3, “The Problem With Fossils”).
- Part of Einstein’s equations introduced the cosmological constant – a force that counteracted gravity and stopped the universe from collapsing in upon itself. He declared that the universe existed in a “steady state”, neither expanding nor contracting. This was the prevailing view until the red-shift of light from galaxies, observed by Edwin Hubble and others in 1929, revealed that the universe is actually expanding, as galaxies are moving away from each other. Subsequent to this new discovery, Einstein described the cosmological constant as his biggest mistake, and removed it from his equations.
- Following the Hubble discovery, scientists then made further observations that the universe is slowing down in its expansion; expanding more and more slowly, and they announced this to the world. This became an established scientific “fact” for several decades. In the late 1990s, however, this was proved incorrect by further remarkable observations from the Hubble Space Telescope and other ground telescopes. Observable Galaxies now appear to be accelerating away from each other! Scientists have now amended Einstein’s cosmological constant, and reinserted it into his equations.
- The universe has always existed. This was the prevailing view of science from the time of Aristotle, until some remarkable discoveries in the 20th century, which caused the scientific community to completely reverse their declarations. Stephen Hawking commented: “All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.”[xv]
These are just a few examples of the many hundreds of instances throughout history where science has “got it wrong” and has had to reverse its declarations. Scientific theories are not “facts”; they are attempts to understand and interpret the facts, and they don’t always get it right.
In the light of science’s poor track record in regard to truth, it seems extremely presumptuous of evolutionists to insist that people trust science as the ultimate purveyor of truth and to relegate faith to the realm of unreliable myth. This represents an unwarranted elevated view of science’s reliability and a complete dismissal of the existence of anything supernatural.
SCIENTISTS OF FAITH
Not all scientists are driven by a predetermined antithesis towards faith. In fact, there is a significant percentage of scientists who see no contradiction between their scientific endeavours and their belief in God. A 2009 survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Centre, found that 51% of scientists believe in God or some kind of deity or supernatural power.[xvi] This is a very different picture to the impression given by Richard Dawkins and other outspoken atheists, who maintain that no intelligent scientist could believe in God. Furthermore, even among atheistic scientists, not all of them agree with the prejudicial and disparaging view of faith that Dawkins espouses. Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, the late Harvard evolutionist and atheist, reflecting on the large number of his respected colleagues who had some kind of religious faith, commented:
“Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs.”[xvii]
While I disagree that Darwinism is compatible with the Christian faith, Gould’s statement acknowledges the large percentage of scientists who seem to be able to embrace both faith and science without any apparent conflict.
Certainly, this has been the case throughout the ages. In fact, many of the great pioneers of science in the past have been men and women of great faith. Here are some examples, together with their statements of faith:
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
A pioneer of observational astronomy.
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations.”[xviii]
Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)
Perhaps the greatest scientist to have ever lived, and the physicist who developed the theory of relativity.
“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are mere details.”[xix]
Lord William Kelvin (1824 – 1907)
Developed the theory of thermodynamics and calculated the value of absolute zero, instigating the still-used Kelvin temperature scale.
“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism. If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”[xx]
Sir Isaac Newton (1643 -1727)
Formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation.
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” or “Universal Ruler”. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.”[xxi]
Johannes Kepler (1571 – 1630)
Formulated the laws of planetary motion.
“I wanted to become a theologian. For a long time I was restless. Now, however, behold how through my effort God is being celebrated in astronomy. ”[xxii]
Nicolas Copernicus (1473 -1543)
Discovered and formulated the heliocentric nature of the solar system.
“I desire to know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws.”[xxiii]
Louis Pasteur (1822 -1895)
Co-founder of microbiology and immunology, and developed vaccination and pasteurisation.
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God.”[xxiv]
Robert Boyle (1627 – 1691)
The founder of modern chemistry.
“God is the author of the universe, and the free establisher of the laws of motion.”[xxv]
Max Planck (1858 – 1947)
Theoretical physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918. The originator of quantum theory, and developer of “Planck’s Constant”, an extremely important constant in cosmology.
“God is the beginning and end of all considerations: He is the foundation.”[xxvi]
Sir Joseph Thomson (1817 – 1901)
Nobel prize winning discoverer of the electron, and the founder of atomic physics.
“Every advance in science declares that ‘Great are the works of the Lord’.”[xxvii]
Nikola Tesla (1856 – 1943)
Inventor of electrical alternating current (AC).
“The gift of mental power comes from God, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.”[xxviii]
Maria Mitchell (1818 -1889)
America’s first female astronomer and the first woman to be entered onto the honour roll of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
“Scientific investigations, pushed on and on, will reveal new ways in which God works, and bring us deeper revelations of the wholly unknown.”[xxix]
CONCLUSION
Faith and science are not contradictory, nor are they mutually exclusive. They deal with two different realms, but those realms are not distinct and separate, for they are inextricably entwined. Life is, at the same time, both physical and spiritual.
Science has its limits though. By its own definition, science can only deal with the observable, measurable natural world. It cannot, therefore, postulate or theorise regarding things that lie outside of that natural world, nor can it claim that nothing outside the natural world exists. This would be akin to a person surrounded by darkness and standing in a pool of light claiming that only those things within the pool of light exist.
If, however, the universe is both physical and spiritual, and if a God exists who is the ultimate cause behind the universe, it would not be unreasonable to expect to observe evidence of his existence and his creative intervention within the physical universe. While ultimate proof or disproof of the existence of a transcendent, supernatural God lies well beyond the remit of true science, this does not rule out the possibility of positive evidence indicating that God’s existence is highly probable; indeed, almost logically inescapable. In fact, Romans 1:20 tells us that God has placed so much evidence for his existence within the natural world, that we are all “without excuse.”
…………………………………….
FOOTNOTES:
[i] Richard Dawkins on militant atheism (transcript), TED talk, 2007 (page visited on 21 January 2015).
[ii] Jennifer Wiseman, in an interview with ABC’s “Compass” program, quoted in https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-05-24/three-scientists-talk-about-how-their-faith-fits-with-their-work/9543772
[iii] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/23/science-and-religion-are-not compatible/#.XElI81wzZPY
[iv] https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/
[v] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
[vi] Documentary film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, 2008, directed by Ben Stein.
[vii] Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion”, New York, First mariner Books, 2006
[viii] Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion”, New York, First mariner Books, 2006, p.360. Also quoted on https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
[ix] D.M. Watson, London Times, August 3, 1929, cited by Bolton Davidheiser, “Evolution and Christian Faith”, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1969, p.79
[x] Timothy Keller, “The Reason For God”, Penguin Publishers, 2008, p.86
[xi] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/23/science-and-religion-are-not-compatible/#.XElI81wzZPY
[xii] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/23/science-and-religion-are-not-compatible/#.XElI81wzZPY
[xiii] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/23/science-and-religion-are-not-compatible/#.XElI81wzZPY
[xiv] Neil DeGrasse Tyson, quoted in the Introduction to Jerry A. Coyne, “Why Science and religion are Incompatible”, Penguin Books, New York, 2016
[xv] Stephen Hawking, “The Beginning of Time”, lecture, published on his website, http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
[xvi] http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
[xvii] Stephen Jay Gould, “Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge”, Scientific American, Vol.267, no.1, 1992, quoted in Alister McGrath, “The Dawkins Delusion?”, IVP, 2007, p.34.
[xviii] Galileo Galilei, in a letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, 1615
[xix] From E. Salaman, “A Talk With Einstein,” The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123
[xx] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/587233
[xxi] Isaac Newton, Principia, Book III; cited in; Newton’s Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his writings, p. 42, ed. H.S. Thayer, Hafner Library of Classics, NY, 1953.
[xxii] Letter to Michael Maestlin (3 Oct 1595). Johannes Kepler Gesammelte Werke (1937- ), Vol. 13, letter 23, l. 256-7, p. 40.
[xxiii] Nicolas Copernicus, As quoted in Poland : The Knight Among Nations (1907) by Louis E. Van Norman, p. 290; also in The Language of God (2006) by Francis Collins, pp. 230-31
[xxiv] Louis Pasteur, quoted in “The Literary Digest”, 18 October, 1902.
[xxv] Robert Boyle (2000). “The Works of Robert Boyle: Publications of 1674, p. 6
[xxvi] Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers as translated by F. Gaynor (1949), p. 184
[xxvii] Joseph Thomson, “Nature” Magazine, Vol. 81, 1909, p.257
[xxviii] Nicola tesla, “My Inventions” first published in Electrical Experimenter magazine (1919); republished as My Inventions : The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla (1983), Chapter 5.
[xxix] Maria Mitchell, diary entry, 1881.
FREE RESOURCES:
PROBLEMS WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION (Web Page)
PROBLEMS WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION (PowerPoint)
CREATION EVOLUTION Q & A (Web Page)
CREATION / EVOLUTION Q & A (PowerPoint)
IS EVOLUTION SCIENTIFICALLY TRUE? (Word Doc)
10 REASONS WHY EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE DON’T MIX (Word Doc)
CREATION AND EVOLUTION: CONFLICTING PHILOSOPHIES AND FOUNDATIONS (Word Doc)
CREATION / EVOLUTION ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS (Word Doc)
CREATION / EVOLUTION: SOME INTERESTING SCIENTIFIC FACTS (word Doc)
SCIENTIFIC QUOTES REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
(See the Apologetics section of this website for more resources on the topic of creation / evolution)
Instructions For Downloading PowerPoint Presentations: Click the PowerPoint link, then click the “Open” drop down box at the top right of the screen and select “Open in PowerPoint Online” or similar. When the presentation is opened, click the “Notes” tab at the bottom right of screen. This will open the Presenter Notes, which provide a detailed explanation of each slide. Some slides also have embedded video content, which can be viewed via the standard “play” button or by clicking the image.
Essential reading for anyone who is serious about this topic!
