Posted on 01/14/2015 10:01:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I’m not a scientist, and I don’t play one on TV. But I can examine scientific evidence and ask the question, “How is life possible?”
This past Christmas, the Wall Street Journal ran an essay of mine entitled “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.” The content will be familiar to those who have read my latest book, “Miracles,” or heard me talk about it here at BreakPoint.
I noted that the initial euphoria over the possibility that there were a septillion -- that’s one followed by 24 zeros -- planets capable of supporting life in the universe was followed by the sober fact that such planets, never mind evidence of extraterrestrial life, are exceedingly rare.
That’s because science has learned just how “fine-tuned” the universe has to be in order to support life of any kind, never mind intelligent life.
As I wrote in the Journal, “Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met,” or our existence would be utterly impossible.
Yet, not only do we exist, we're discussing the fact that we exist, which prompted me to ask, “What can account for” all of this? and “Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions actually require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?”
Well, the response to the column was overwhelming. The piece really went viral and garnered more “likes” on Facebook than any article the Wall Street Journal has ever published--over 350,000 as I read this now! I find that amazing and more than a little humbling.
Not surprisingly, the piece had plenty of critics. One scientist wrote to the Journal complaining about “religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments” and “allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist.”
This objection, which I’m told figured prominently in the comments section at the Journal, essentially amounts to saying that only scientists should be allowed to talk about the religious implications of scientific things. Scientists, it seems, can dabble as metaphysicians, philosophers, and theologians, but not vice-versa.
This is the foregone conclusion even when the person of faith is merely citing scientific findings, as I did. However, this objection is not rooted in science but in scientism, which holds that “empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.”
The criticism wasn’t limited to comments from atheistic scientists. Several religious believers, including those whose work I respect, took me to task for saying that science can “prove” the existence of God, much less the God of the Bible. As one Christian philosopher put it, a god whose existence can be proved scientifically isn’t God.
That is true, which is why I’m happy that I never said anything resembling that. What I did was point to the sheer improbability of our existence and ask whether it might not be reasonable to infer, like Fred Hoyle, who coined the phrase “Big Bang,” whether the universe might be, as he put it, a “put up job.”
The scientific findings I cited aren’t “proof” that compel belief in God’s existence but “signs” pointing to that possibility and inviting you to follow them to see where they might lead.
In the end, belief in God, especially the biblical God, is an act of faith. But so too is believing that our existence is simply the result of chance. Like it or not.
Science, God, and the Improbability of Life: "Like" It or Not
Read Eric's December 25th op-ed in the Wall Street Journal here. (Note: The op-ed may be behind a subscription wall. If you cannot access it, simply go to Google and search “Wall Street Journal Eric Metaxas"). Eric's book "Miracles" goes into even more depth on science, God and life. Pick up a copy at our online bookstore.
“a septillion — that’s one followed by 24 zeros — planets capable of supporting life in the universe”
A universe that size doesn’t fit in 10,000 years.
There are processes that, once set in motion, are almost impossible to extinguish. One is agriculture; even as it depletes the planet, no one can stop it, because it provides more and more food.
Another is corruption: once the game gets entrenched, you have to be corrupt to play, so there is no stopping it.
Another is technology, as anyone born 50 or more years ago can attest. We created Mommy because we missed her; we missed being an infant; we created our own slavemaster.
Another is life.
You think the universe is 10,000 years old?
Which came first? The Chicken or the Egg?
God put the Chicken on Earth and then the Chicken laid the Egg. So the Chicken came first.
There is this story about two old fellows arguing about believing in God. There is no God, prove to me there is a God, says one of the fellows. Well now I’m not sure I can do that says the other fellow, you see, I believe in the almighty and feel very good about it, but I’m rather simple minded and can’t explain all things. I just know that when I die God will have someone at the gate waiting for me and I’ll see all my family again and oh what a time that will be. If there is no God that will be ok because I’ve had a good life, loved my family and my neighbor too. Now when you die and there is no God I guess we’ll hear you laughing at all us old fogies. But then again when you die and there is a God and he is at the gate, what are you going to tell him?
We have the universe.
Part known, part unknown.
And we have science. A science that READILY ADMITS there are things that can never be proven, true things. See Goedel for explanations.
My sister and I were discussing this the other day. I have a penchant for science, having read alot of relativity, QM, etc.
So I said to her even though science tries to discard the metaphysical, there is one thing they can’t talk about.
You KNOW when you are being watched.
It’s provable.
It’s repeatable.
And science DOESN’T HAVE A CLUE about what’s going on!
But I digress:
“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 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.” ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers
It does, if Creation involved an instantaneous stretching-forth of the heavens, which the Bible in 5 places so characterizes God's act.
Once it’s been established that time is a relative quantity—and it has—it can no longer be a real point of contention in the evo-crevo type of debate.
The improbability of life is zero.
There is life, so there is no probability that there not be life.
The probablility of what exists is always 100%.
No, it does not. Your interpretation of 5 verses that have been translated through a dozen languages, and have numerous versions in English alone, says that it must have been instantaneous... but not one Bible in existence has the word instantaneous in it, in any translation.
I am certain, with all of my heart, that He created this amazing and glorious and very difficult to comprehend universe... but he made it on His timetable, and in His way... not subjet to the limitations of whatever was written thousands of years ago in ways that pre-scientific homo sapiens on this one tiny, remote planet might understand.
First assumption you make is that mankind was not as "smart" as we are today.
Second assumption you make is that God could not explain His universe to man in a way man would understand it.
The Bible is full of science and astronomy. All you have to do is read.
No, it does not. Your interpretation of 5 verses that have been translated through a dozen languages, and have numerous versions in English alone, says that it must have been instantaneous... but not one Bible in existence has the word instantaneous in it, in any translation. You argue from a weak position regarding the translation of the Bible. Hebrew is Hebrew. Just check the original language and that will remove a great deal of the confusion.
Have you checked all of the idioms in the Hebrew?
Dozens of languages? No; we have the Septuagint OT, which is in Greek; and we have the Masoretic texts, which are in Hebrew. That is two. I know of no others that are relied on to get, say, the KJV or the NASB versions. When it says He stretched-forth the heavens, why would He have done it s-l-o-w-l-y?
My instantaneous scripture of choice is that when He said, "Let there be light", there WAS light. Didn't take Him long. I suppose that what was being lit, and what was giving off the light, was the cosmos.
ealgeone: "The Bible is full of science and astronomy."
Sure, but it's the "science" and astrology of ancient Babylon or Egypt, having nothing to do with what we today call "natural science".
In fact, while the Bible is not "anti-science", it's main point -- which it hollers loudly from the hill-tops -- is that God is greater than nature itself, or any natural-science understandings we may develop of how nature works.
In short: the Bible tells us that God is above, beyond and outside of nature, and therefore of our natural-science explanations.
That's why this article's author never says "science proves", but only that it suggests with signs pointing in God's direction.
“Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met,” or our existence would be utterly impossible.”
The one example of life we know of needs those parameters. It’s fine to assume all life would need them like we do, but it’s still working off an example of exactly one.
FReegards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.