Many atheists claim that they would gladly believe in God if the evidence pointed in His direction. Evolutionary Biologist Jerry Coyne makes this very claim in "Faith vs Fact." However, there's good reason to question his claim. For one thing, the evidence is already available, abundantly. Paul A. Nelson, PH.D asks rhetorically:
· "So why isn't the mystery of life a reasonable candidate for challenging the validity of naturalism or atheism? In the words of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), philosopher of the Scientific Revolution, God's 'ordinary works' (such as organisms) are more than enough 'to convince [refute] atheism.' That bacterial cell under the microscope, loaded with molecular machinery of astounding complexity, represents a world of evidence for design-- all the evidence anyone should ever need."
What does Coyne make of this evidence? His answer betrays an unwavering faith and commitment to naturalism:
· "Given the remarkable ability of science to solve problems once considered intractable, the number of scientific phenomena that weren't even known a hundred years ago, it's probably more judicious to admit ignorance than to tout divinity." (157)
Coyne erroneously assumes that science is in opposition to divinity and that the scientific findings support a naturalistic worldview as opposed to ID. However, as Nelson and many others observe, it is these very findings that point feverishly to their Author.
In fact, the Bible affirms that God governs His creation by His laws. By what reason or evidence then can Coyne claim that these laws, which make science possible, are natural and undesigned? There is none!
Therefore, rather than science as a naturalistic triumph, it is more likely a testimony to its Creator, who has given us a mind to know Him.
Is Coyne open to the evidence? Is seems that he has already invested his faith in the wrong horse.