CAN SCIENCE PROVE GOD?

While most atheists acknowledge that science cannot disprove God, they claim that neither can it prove Him.

Since "proof" seems to convey finality or certainty, I will use the the more modest term "evidence." Yes, science does provide evidence for an intelligent Designer.

Had science revealed a world of chaos instead of order and design, I think that the atheist and science would be able to discount the existence of an intelligent Designer. However, all of the findings of science tell us just what our senses have always told us - that this cannot possibly be a world fashioned by chance.

In fact, science has taken us further than our immediate senses have. Science has shown us that life is more than a haphazard ball of jelly. Instead, it is a collection of cells, each containing an irreducibly complex array of machinery. Even the molecular components - proteins and DNA - are so complex and functional that they laugh at any naturalistic explanation.

Science has also revealed the fine-tuning of the universe, its constants calibrated just right to support life.

Even the exercise of science depends on the bedrock of the immutable, universal, and elegant laws/forces of science. Without these wonderfully designed laws, there could be no science at all. Consequently, the very fact that we can do science and accumulate knowledge depends on a God who has designed it all - the very God we stubbornly deny.

And what immutably maintains these laws/forces in a world of molecules-in-motion?

Everything we observe cries out "design," even the "natural" laws we now look towards as our Creator-substitutes.

Does science prove God? Science cannot utter a syllable without God. All of its findings should be labeled, "Disclosed and Made by the Designer."

In fact, the evidence for the Designer is so compelling, that it has compelled many to abandon atheism as a failed hypothesis. Former atheist and astronomer Alan Sandage wrote:

·       "As I said before, the world is too complicated in all of its parts to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. . . . The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some kind of organizing principle—an architect."

In "There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," Antony Flew concluded that DNA requires an intelligent cause:

·       “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

·       “I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together."

Flew had become a theist based upon the evidence of science. Meanwhile, science offers no evidence in favor of non-design, especially at science's most seminal levels.

If science offers no evidence against the existence of the Designer, why is His existence denied? Purely by choice!

To this, the atheist responds:

·       "Science doesn't have anything to say about the non-existence of the good-tooth-fairy or the spaghetti-monster either, nor should it."

This objection misses the point. The spaghetti-monster is not a concern of science unless the atheist claims that this is the name of the Intelligent Designer.

Science, in regards to ID, is addressing a fundamental question of origin - did the world come into existence by itself or was it designed by a transcendent being? Besides, is it possible to invoke natural causation if the natural hadn't already existed?

To these questions, the spaghetti-monster is irrelevant.