The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Psalm 19:1 (NKJV)
Most of us, at one time or another, have looked in wonder at the night sky on a clear night when the glory of the stars glistened like diamonds. What a beautiful expanse it is! And we probably found ourselves thinking about the significant questions such a sight provokes. Where did it all come from? How big is the universe? How did God create such a wonderful and awesome thing? Perhaps you even wondered whether God created it all.
For thinking people pondering Christianity, the question of whether science and Christianity are compatible is an important one. Unless you have had your head in the sand, you know that many discount the validity of Christian faith and especially the veracity of the Biblical record by appealing to science. So it seems only fair to look at the claims of science and the claims of the Bible and try to make some sense of them. Even for those of us who have settled on Christianity as the truth, we need to know more.
Just what is science anyway? Do we understand the place it should hold? Have we elevated science to a status it should not have? Wilfred Sellers, who was a professor of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, has said, "Science is the measure of all things. Of those things that are true and real, that they are real, and of those things that are unreal and false, that they are unreal and false. Science is the end all, be all, and do all of modern knowledge." With comments like these, it should be obvious that we are living in an age dominated by the idea that science holds the keys to understanding the truth of not only the material universe, but life itself.
This view of science is called "scientism," the belief that only is something can be tested by science is it true. Those who hold such a position think that everything else, such as philosophy and religion, are matters for conjecture, merely subjective issues where one opinion is as good as another. We see this view expressed all around us. People say things like, "Well, that may be true for you, and if it works for you, fine. But I believe . . . ." You do not see that sort of thing going on in a laboratory. If the professor said, "There is hydrochloric acid in that beaker, be careful," no one would say, "Now doc, that may be hydrochloric acid to you, but its lemonade to me. Don’t put you ideas of truth on me." It is assumed by most that science is true and other things are not as exact. But that, as I hope to show you, is a dubious assumption.
Scientism, you see, is not science, it is a philosophy about science. It elevates science from a tool of inquiry to the status of absolute truth. The irony of scientism is that true science is built on certain philosophical assumptions outside of science without which science could not function. Science assumes that there is objective truth which can be discovered. It assumes objective values, like reporting data fairly and honestly. It assumes that the world is rationally orderable and that the human mind and sensory faculties are reliable. Science could not function without these and other philosophical suppositions, so scientism is essentially self-refuting. To say only science is true is like saying that there are no true statements, or saying, "I do not exist."
True science is a tool of inquiry. It deals with what can be discovered and tested by what we call the scientific method. As such, it deals with what is observable, quantifiable, repeatable, as it tries to discover the facts. It should go where the facts lead without bias and predetermined outcomes. When it makes conclusions that are no testable or engages in speculation or advances theories, they should be treated as theories and not as proven facts. It is important to distinguish the two. Many times we do not.
Here is where the supposed contradictions between science and Christianity, or the Biblical account of creation lie. For many, this is the key sticking point. Did God really create all things as the Bible said in Genesis, or did everything come about by so-called "natural" processes? Did we evolve from a common life form, as Darwin postulated in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, published in 1859, or did God form and create man by a supernatural act?
Let’s examine some of the theories of the origin of the universe and of life on planet earth. As we do, we must understand that some scientists have a definite bias against any belief in a supernatural creator. Dr. George Wald, Nobel prize winning Biochemist from Harvard, commenting on the impossibility of life spontaneously arising from non-life, said, "That leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. But we cannot accept that on philosophical grounds. Therefore, we choose to believe the impossible, that life arose spontaneously by chance." We must realize from the outset that some are like those described in Romans. "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools . . . . They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator . . . . . since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God . . ." (1:22,25,28). Some choose to reject the possibility of God.
With that in mind, let’s look at the odds for evolution. Darwin’s theory had swept up almost every naturalist in North America within twenty years of the publication of his book The Origin of Species. Darwin had simply built upon the presuppositions of Immanuel Kant, who postulated that the universe was infinitely old, infinitely large, and static (that the conditions for life to exist are always present). With such a universe, there was an infinite time in which to throw the dice of chance, and with enough throws of the dice of chance, even highly complex things could be made, perhaps even something as highly complex as a German philosopher. Darwin assumed as much in his theory of life evolving over a vast amount of time.
But Darwin’s theory has run into some trouble with the scientific community. Not only has there been no transitional forms of species evolving into new species, most scientists now believe that the universe is not infinitely old. With the theory of the Big Bang (that the universe began with an explosion and has been expanding outward since that moment) comes the realization that the universe had a beginning, that it is not infinitely old. If there is a beginning, there must be a Beginner.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, who was the head of the NASA/Goddard Space Institute, said, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story (big bang) ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains 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."
Furthermore, if there is not an infinite amount of time, there is simply not enough time for even simple things to be accounted for by random chance. Henry Morris gives an interesting scenario in his book The Remarkable Birth of the Planet Earth:
Consider the possible number of different ways 200 parts could be aligned together. . . .
This is a tremendously large number. It can be shown to be approximately 10375, that is, a number written as "one" followed by 375 "zeros". Therefore, the correct alignment of the 200 parts has only one chance out of 10375 of being selected on the first trial.
Suppose a new trial can be made every second. In all of supposed astronomic time . . . there have only been 1018 seconds, so the chance that the correct alignment might be obtained once in the 10 billion years would only be one out of 10(375-18), or 1 in 10357. This is still practically zero.
Suppose that we try to improve the chances by arranging to have a large number of sets of the 200 parts, all being tried simultaneously. Suppose that each part is only the size of an electron . . . . Then, let us fill the entire universe (of radius 5 billion light-years) with solidly-packed sets of electrons. It can be shown that the whole universe could only contain, at the most, 10130 such sets of 200 solidly-packed electrons. Thus, we now are trying to visualize 10130 sets of 200 parts each., and trying to arrange only one set into the correct alignment by chance, just once in ten billion years, anywhere in the universe.
Suppose also that we invent a machine capable of making different trials every second, on every one of the 10130 sets. . . . . This would permit a total of . . . 10166 trials to be made.
Still, after all this, the chance that one of these 10166 trials would give the right result and make the system work is only . . . 1 in 10209. In other words, the idea that a system of 200 parts could be arranged by chance into the correct order is absolutely absurd!
Most systems, of course, including all living organisms, are far more complex than a mere 200 parts. The cerebral cortex in the human brain, for example, contains over 10 billion cells, all arranged in proper order, and each of these cells is itself infinitely complex!
It seems that there isn’t enough time to throw the dice of chance in order to create order from chaos. And when you couple that with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the law of entropy, which states that the universe is running down, or that things tend toward disorder, then evolution has a big problem. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is evident all around us. If we saw a pile of bricks in a field, we might say that the pile had once been a house, but we would not say that, without human intervention, it would one day become a house. Bricks do not randomly assemble themselves into a house, although over time the house may disintegrated into a pile of bricks.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics really gives support for the argument that there must have been a Designer for a universe with so much complexity and order.
Let me tell you the story of my watch. One day there was a fellow walking down the road and he kicked together a few slivers of metal. Over the course of time, other people came down this road and also kicked together various other elements. As time passed and more people came, the watch began to take shape. It formed a face, and hands, and one day just started running. Then I came down that road and picked it up, and its been working ever since! Do you believe the story of my watch? If you do not believe the story of my watch, how can you believe the story of the random evolution of the human eye? It seems to me that it takes more faith to believe in evolution or that life could form by accident than it takes to believe that there was an intelligence behind it all. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Carl Sagan is involved in an organization called SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). Perhaps they have a government grant to do this. Although I believe it was Senator Proxmire who suggested that the government could better spend its money looking for intelligent life in Washington, D.C. than in outer space. In any event, Sagan and Company are listening to the universe with an ear to hear any form of "communication" which has a semblance of order and organization about it. They reason that even if they do not understand the message, if it is ordered in any way it must come from an intelligence, because order implies intelligence. I agree. What a shame they can’t see how this logic of theirs applies to life on earth.
God has His fingerprints all over the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. What we see when we gaze at the night sky or a little baby is, in my mind, incredible proof of a powerful Designer-Creator.
And when we turn to the Biblical account of creation, the biggest hurdle is the first four words of Genesis, "In the beginning God . . ." And the fourth word is the one that matters. You see, if you can get God into the picture, then the rest is easy. And the scientific evidence is there for the existence of God. Astronomer George Greenstein, in his book The Symbiotic Universe, said, "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency — or, rather, Agency — must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" Vera Kistiakowsky, past president of the Association of Women in Science and MIT physicist, said, "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." Allan Sandage, winner of the Crafoord prize in astronomy (much like the Nobel prize), commented, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Robert Griffiths, Heinemann prize winner in mathematical physics, remarked, "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use." The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.
If God is in the equation then the details can be worked out later. One young boy asked his father whether he believed there was life on other planets. The father said, "No, son, I don’t believe there is." The boy said, "Then why did God go to all the trouble to created them all?" The father replied, "What trouble?" You see, when you bring an almighty God into the picture, the equation changes.
We will not answer all the questions of science or of the Bible here now. But the real question is whether you have enough evidence to believe in a Creator who brought order out of chaos, and who has a design, not only for the universe, but also for your life? You see, we didn’t come from nothing and are not going back to nothing, not in the sense that there is nothing behind the universe. Because there is Someone behind it all, you have meaning — your life counts. If there was no God, and everything evolved from the elements, and no life after death, then life would have no real meaning. There would be no basis for morality, no reason you shouldn’t go out and kill someone, no value in human existence. And I believe it is because we, as a culture, have chosen to remove God from our lives that we see the moral decay in our society.
The Bible begins with God because He is the place to begin. Whether it is the birth of the universe, the formation of planet earth, the creation of man, or the new creation of your life, He is the place to start.
Perhaps all of your questions about the universe and about God are not yet answered. Let me challenge you to put the scientific method into action concerning God. The best way you can verify the existence of God is to allow Him to come into your life. You can experience Him for yourself by coming to Jesus Christ and surrendering your life to Him. The Bible teaches that we have all sinned and that is the reason we have such a hard time with God. We are blinded to the truth and need the blindfold removed. Only as we surrender to Christ can the blindfold come off. We stand condemned by our sinful life, but Jesus came to this earth to make a way for us to return to God. He died on the Cross, taking the penalty for your sin and mine, so that we could be made right with God. If you will allow Him to move into your life, He will reveal Himself to you in ways that you can personally experience. You can know Him for yourself. Ask Him to forgive your sins and come into your life right now.
Copyright © 1997 J. David Hoke. This data file is the sole property of the copyright holder and may be copied only in its entirety for circulation freely without charge. All copies of this data file must contain the above copyright notice.
This data file may not be copied in part (except for small quotations used with citation of source), edited, revised, copied for resale or incorporated in any commercial publications, recordings, broadcasts, performances, displays or other products offered for sale, without the written permission of the copyright holder. Requests for permission should be made in writing and e-mailed to J. David Hoke, at David@JDavidHoke.com.