Can science prove God? Some respond that since we cannot put
God in a test tube, science cannot prove God.
However, in The
Reality of God, physicist Steven R. Hemler claims that science plus a
little common sense can prove the Creator’s existence. In support, he invokes
three scientists who have claimed that the universe had a beginning. If this is
so, then the universe requires an eternal uncaused Causer who transcends the
universe:
• British physicist Edmund T. Whitaker wrote, “There is no
ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and were suddenly
galvanized into action. It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo—Divine
will constituting Nature from nothingness.”
• Allan R. Sandage, one of the world’s leading astronomers,
said, “We can’t understand the universe in any clear way without the
supernatural.”
• And, world-renowned astrophysicist Robert Jastrow wrote,
“the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis
are the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply
at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” He continued,
“For the scientist who has lived by his 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.”
If the universe had a beginning, an eternal uncaused Causer
must have caused it. Hemler argues that mere explosions (like the Big Bang) do
not create order and predictability, the tools of science. In contrast,
explosions produce chaos rather than our immutable, simple, and elegant laws of
science. According to Hemler, these laws provide evidence of intelligent
design:
·
First, in Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2,
energy (“ E”) equals mass (“ m”) times the speed of light (“ c”) squared. This
is an example of an amazing and powerful law of nature that can be expressed
with very simple mathematics. Even though the mathematical equation is very
simple, this physical law has far-reaching implications for the entire
universe...
Why so precise; why must the speed of light be exactly
squared? Hemler offers other examples of such elegance:
·
Another example is the Second Law of Motion
formulated by Sir Isaac Newton, which states that the force exerted by an
object (“ F”) equals the mass of the object (“ m”) times the acceleration of
the object (“ a”). In other words, F = ma.
Not only are these formulas universal, simple, and elegant,
they are also immutable. In a universe of molecules-in-motion, it seems that
these anomalous laws have a transcendent origin and sustaining Power. Hemler
reasons that the effects (namely, the laws of science) must be the product of a
cause greater than they:
·
The harmony, order, and elegance found in the
governing principles of the universe, based on mathematical concepts that take
the greatest efforts of the finest human minds to unlock and understand, must
have come from a Mind far greater.
All effects require causes greater than they. To deny this
basic observation is to assert that some aspects of effects are uncaused,
something that science will not allow. Instead, science rests on the assumption
that any effect has a sufficient cause - the very thing that science seeks to
discover.
Therefore, if science regards the universe as the effect,
which it now must with the demise of the theory which claimed that the universe
always existed, it must seek a sufficient and eternally existing Cause or give
up its claim to be science.
Indeed, science has sought a cause but has limited itself to
a natural and insufficient cause, one that cannot possibly explain the origin
and stability of the universe. Perhaps, it needs to broaden its scope.
No comments:
Post a Comment