HAS SCIENCE BANISHED GOD?

Atheists charge that soon there will no longer be a purpose for God. Why? Because—they claim—we will no longer need God to explain the mysteries of life, since science is now providing those explanations, making God irrelevant. One atheist exults:

·       "As our understanding of the physical world has increased—and as our ability to test theories and claims has improved—the domain of God's miracles and interventions, or other supposed supernatural phenomena, has consistently shrunk...We stopped needing God to explain floods, but we still needed Him to explain sickness and health. Then we didn't need Him to explain sickness and health, but we still needed him to explain consciousness. Now we are beginning to get a grip on consciousness..."

The assumption is that science will soon make God irrelevant. However, this assumption is based upon an unsubstantiated leap of faith—that, in some way, scientific explanation is opposed to God's existence.

Instead of this model, there is another more in keeping with reason—that God is the foundation of science. It is God, therefore, who makes science possible. Looked at this way, science becomes, not the enemy of God but rather His invention, beautifully highlighting His workmanship.

After all, what is it that makes scientific discovery possible? Is it not God's immutable, universal, and elegantly causal laws—laws which are impossible without a Designer and immutable Sustainer?

Only with such a God as this is science and learning possible.

How can we account for the elegant laws of science without an Intelligent Designer? Can an explosion, what some might call the Big Bang, account for these exquisitely-structured laws? Can it explain E=MC2?

Instead, we recognize that such elegance is normally the product of intelligence. Without such simple and elegantly-fashioned laws, scientific discovery would be almost impossible. Think about it…if a law of science required fifty terms to accurately describe it, that very complexity might keep it hidden, preventing scientific understanding.

How do we account for the fact that such laws and/or causes operate uniformly and universally throughout the universe? Ordinarily, forces or causes operate locally. A campfire warms only when we are close to it. The radio station can only transmit its signal within a certain distance. However, the laws of science are not limited to certain locales. If they were, there could be no science, no descriptive formulas, no textbooks, no predictions, and no replication of findings appropriate to various continents and conditions.

What then enables the laws of the universe to operate uniformly and universally, unobstructed by storms, mountains, or distances? And why does nothing affect them, while they affect everything? They contrast with the things of this material world in every respect, suggesting that they come from another realm, a Transcendent realm.

What can account for the immutability of these laws in view of the fact that this entire universe is expanding, moving, and even deteriorating—moment by moment? Must there not be an uncaused Cause who remains immutable? For, if the Cause changed, how could “it” sustain our immutable laws?

Besides this, how can science function in such a changing world? Would not its findings also be in flux? And wouldn't these findings be entirely useless? As soon as we could publish them, the supposed facts would have already changed.

In all their characteristics, the laws of science point to their Creator and Sustainer. Their immutability, uniformity, and elegance demand an Intelligent Designer.

Yet, the atheist encounters other problems, as well. If the many laws of science are not eternal, then they too require a cause and an explanation. Their cause can only be an uncaused Eternal Intelligent Being, who does not require a cause.

If these laws are eternal, they must transcend the beginning of this finite universe. The fact that they would have worked so harmoniously and would have been so fine-tuned to create such an orderly, functional, and life-sustaining universe points to their unity and perhaps eternality within the Mind of God.

Besides, without such a transcendent Being, science would never be able to reasonably explain anything! Why not? Because any explanation would always require its own explanation, ad infinitum.

In conclusion, science does not do away with God. Instead—whether it wants to admit it or not—all the sciences depend upon Him! Therefore, science is not in opposition to God. Rather, science derives its very being and substance from Him! As a result, every scientific finding declares, not only His existence, but also His glory.

Humanity, Mammalian Equality, and the Divine

Ideas and beliefs are our masters. As we think, so also do we live! Let’s do a thought experiment. Ingrid Newkirk, the head of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, believes that we should make no moral or value distinction among mammals: “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals.”

What are the implications of such a belief? Many! Our laws reflect our values. If there is no moral distinction among mammals, then our laws should reflect this belief. They should protect mammals against murder, not only by humans but by other amoral animal agents. Consequently, we should prosecute any mammal who kills a mouse of a rat, but we can’t stop there. We should also prosecute any mammal who steals from a mammal – think milk.

What would the implications of such “upgraded” laws be? Pigs, rats and cows would inevitably overrun our streets, farms and gardens. Some fundamentalist animal rights folk will answer, “So what! It’s about time that the tables are reversed.”

However, such a reversal would have even more serious costs. When our laws are revised to protect every mammal – and this would make our laws unenforceable – then none will be protected. Expect to see libel, theft, murder and sexual abuse skyrocket!

The problems don’t stop here. Even Newkirk’s position is man-centered, depending on human judgment. Why should our laws stop at protecting mammals? Does Newkirk promote the value of mammals because she too is a mammal, and, as a mammal, she confers greater value on mammals? From the perspective of animal rights, this seems very chauvinistic. Why not also extend value and protection to fish and birds? Would we deny mammalian worth to them simply because they are more dissimilar from us?

Some will interject that, “Birds and fish are less intelligent… or emotive… or conscious than mammals. Therefore they don’t have the value that mammals have!”

Apart from the questionable science upon which such arguments rest, this position(s) has even more fundamental problems. Why should the level of intelligent or emotion bestow a greater value on an animal? While science might be able to demonstrate that certain species can perform certain tasks more efficiently, it is unable to answer the question of value.

Instead, the question of value or worth requires an even more fundamental question: “Value or worth to whom?” Is there an ultimate source that determines value or is this entire concept just a human invention to bestow meaning on life?

If we created this idea, and value has no existence outside of what we determine value to be, then we have returned to man-centered center and dominated world. However, it is an arbitrary world, depending on who is in power and can enforce their worldview. It also means that anything goes, because there is no absolute standard of truth to determine the worth of anything. It means that if I think that people who look or act like me are the most evolved, and if I attach value to the highest level of evolution, then who can say that I am wrong!

Real value therefore depends on the existence of immutable and universal truth that transcends us and our competing opinions, and therefore also a Truth-giver that transcends us.

Some will interject, “We have natural laws, and they don’t require your Truth-giver. Why then can’t we have a natural law that bestows value?”

There are many problems with this hope. For one thing, there is no evidence that our natural, universal, immutable laws don’t require a Truth-giver. Perhaps even more problematic, a natural law that bestows value cannot be natural. Once again, value is the product of personhood and not science, which can only tell us what is. Value is the product of intelligence, consciousness and will, not of impersonal and mindless forces.

We can demonstrate this by showing the distinction between the law of gravity and the law that imparts value. The effects of the former can be bypassed or overcome; those of the values law cannot.  We can board an airplane that violates the natural effects of gravity without consequence. However, we cannot sex-traffic teenagers and pre-teens without violating the law of value. Hence, this law is a different kind of law – a Personal law. In contrast, gravity can attract, but it cannot value anything.

Because of the universality, immutable, and Personhood of value, it doesn’t matter whether we go to Alaska or the desert or even enter a time machine to go to a different age, the same immutable law of value will confront us and the girls we intend to traffic. Nor will any of our scientific innovations change it. Our conscience instructs us that our value as humans transcends any changes or innovations, and our conscience will punish us if we defy the law we find therein! In this sense, it seems to be more un-defiable and Personal than the law of gravity, which we can side-step without any consequence.

At this, some will respond, “I know what is right and wrong without your God.” However, it is impossible to know what is “right and wrong” unless there is a real and objective right and wrong, which transcends our bio-chemical reactions. However, you can say, “I have the very real feeling of right and wrong regardless!” True, but irrelevant! Feelings cannot equate with truth unless truth and value have an independent existence, apart from our feelings.