Posted on 10/15/2025 9:57:11 AM PDT by Heartlander
Many Baby Boomers are sceptical about God. They think that believing in a higher power is probably incompatible with rationality. Over the last few centuries, religious belief has appeared to be in rapid decline, and materialism (the idea that the physical world is all there is to reality) has been on the rise, as the natural outcome of modern science and reason.
But if this scepticism is common among my older generation, times are changing. As we come to the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, the tables are turning – with scientific discoveries making people question the very things they took for granted and thought rational. Perhaps surprisingly, Gen Z are leading the way, purporting that the belief in God’s existence might not be just a trend on the rise – it’s a rationally sound conviction, in line with their attitude towards science and religion.
While the findings of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin created the impression that the workings of the universe could be explained without a creator God, the last century has seen what I call ‘The Great Reversal of Science’. With a number of break-through scientific discoveries – including thermodynamics, the theory of relativity, and quantum mechanics, plus the Big Bang and theories of expansion, heat death, and fine-tuning of the universe – the pendulum of science has swung back in the opposite direction.
More and more convincingly, and perhaps in spite of itself, science today is pointing to the fact that, to be explained, our universe needs a creator. In the words of Robert Wilson, Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of the echo of the Big Bang in 1978, and an agnostic: ‘If all this is true [the Big Bang theory] we cannot avoid the question of creation.’
It is true that the existence of God cannot be proved incontrovertibly. While absolute proofs only exist in the theoretical domains of mathematics and logic, relative proofs are what we normally deal with, and what is generally considered ‘evidence’ in everyday life. If, like Richard Dawkins, we take a rational and scientific approach to the existence or non-existence of God, then we should only be persuaded by multiple, independent, and converging pieces of evidence.
Scientists across many fields of inquiry are now coming round to the idea that the thermal death of the universe and the Big Bang are strong evidence that our cosmos had an absolute beginning, while the fine-tuning of the universe and the transition from inert matter to life imply (separately) some more extraordinary fine tuning, showing the intervention of a creator external to our world.
With sets of converging evidence from different scientific disciplines – cosmology to physics, biology to chemistry – it is increasingly difficult for materialists to hold their position. Indeed, if they deny a creator, then they must accept and uphold that the universe had no beginning, that some of the greatest laws of physics (the principle of conservation of mass-energy, for example) have been violated, and that the laws of nature have no particular reason to favour the emergence of life.
Weighing up the evidence on each side of the scale is a matter of intellectual rigour, and the question ‘Is there a creator God?’ is one we should all be asking ourselves, with serious implication for every one of us. What’s intriguing is that it’s actually the youth, who you’d think would be more preoccupied with more mundane and practical concerns, that are leading the way.
Last August, a YouGov survey revealed that belief in God has doubled among young people (aged 18-24) in the last four years, with atheism falling in the same age group from 49 per cent in August 2021 to 32 per cent. Interpreting the data, Rev Marcus Walker, rector of St Bartholomew the Great in the City of London, mentioned that young people ‘seem really interested in the intellectual and spiritual side of religion’.
Another report from the think tank Theos revealed that Gen Z have a more balanced perspective towards the relationship between science and religion. Over one in two young people think religion has a place in the modern world, and the majority (68 per cent) of Gen Z respondents believe that you could be religious and be a good scientist.
Far from painting a picture in which the number of people believing in God is dwindling (which has been the usual narrative in the last century), this research suggests we are at the dawn of a revolution – one in which belief in God is not simply supported by science, but embraced by younger generations, too.
In general, Gen Z seems to have positive and hopeful view of science’s impact on the world. According to recent figures, 49 per cent of Gen Z trust scientists and academics the most to lead global change, far ahead of politicians (8 per cent) and world leaders (6 per cent) (WaterAid, 2025). And yet, they are still spiritually curious: their trust in science doesn’t preclude them from wanting to explore spirituality and contemplating something bigger than our universe.
Could they be the ones showing older generations a new way forward, one in which religion and science can coexist? And, more to the point, we now have the scientific evidence that would support a big shift in perspective. In the words of 91-year-old Carlo Rubbia, Professor of Physics at Harvard and Nobel laureate: ‘We come to God by the path of reason, others follow the irrational path.’
I can’t understand how anyone educated in the hard sciences doesn’t believe in the Almighty.
Correction: 2) The universe is too young to have the high degree of complexity and order arisen out of chaos or accident. There must be a creator.
The worst hold out is Darwinian biology. They can’t explain the complicated machinery inside the cell at all. That machinery didn’t arrive by chance or accident.
Their proof?
It only looks like design, it is really randomness.
Three years ago, I learned that the probability that life could arise spontaneously ( abiogenesis) was 1 chance in ten to the trillions. I was amazed.
I immediately signed up for general chemistry at our local university. I am currently taking organic chemistry. My goal is to learn as much as possible about the chemistry of the cell as my time left on earth will allow. I am retired and I am thoroughly enjoying the journey.
I am taking a break from studying Sn1 reactions and should get back to work after hitting the “post” button.
Re: “derisively labeled ‘God of the gaps’ “
As the evidence accumulates, the response can be a derisive “god of enough time” retort.
When my organic chem class taught us how hard it was to synthesize a mid size molecule it became quite apparent that there are few natural conditions which would allow synthesis of those molecules to occur. To propose that those unnatural chemical reactions could occur in sequence and stay in a 3d spatial conglomeration in a natural environment long enough is a very, very unlikely scenario
To propose that the language of dna could occur by chance and control the mechanisms of the workings of a cell is completely unfounded.
Once I knew that it was easy to believe that natural evolution could not occur.
Who the creator of life on Earth is, is not discoverable by math or physics. Jesus is a great candidate. He changed water to wine, raised the dead, made food to feed great crowds, made the lame walk, and came back to life after dying on the cross, and being buried for 3 days
Bookmark.
Very cool, WT. 👍😁👍
Dr. Tour is killing it.
The steward hypothesized that the fine wine he tasted came from the vine.
Other than the servants and Mary (and, one supposes, Jesus), who, of any standing in society, with any kind of professional reputation to uphold, would have contradicted him?
Nevertheless, he was dead wrong. His theory was defunct.
Career geologists are having a bit of difficulty accepting, shall we say, the “Biblical Timeline”(TM).
Not a lot of “young earthers” in that cohort.
We’ll get them to come around, though.
Eventually.
Or perhaps not.
Lol.
Abiogenesis and macroevolution, as theories, are both uttering the death rattle at this point.
And that is surprising given recent research. Three weeks ago I read a study where scientists traced some "junk DNA" to the body's ability to heal nerves. The complexity of the human body is beyond any possibility of "chance".
Indeed.
Great minds think alike...
bump
I had quite an journey from believer to atheist and again a believer.
As a youth I was a believer as I was told there is a god by my elders and peers. It was just an accepted truth. Then I got my degree in geology and became schooled in evolution which I believed and still believe. Evolution contradicted my former religious beliefs thus I became an absolute atheist over time and peer influence. This was in the 60s.
The turning point was pharmacy school. Years studying the human body and its multiple systems that keep us alive defies imagination. We are designed with positive and negative feedback mechanism that keep us alive, homeostasis.
As a pharmacist we could help the body via our drugs. That was our job.
A million Einsteins could not design the human body nor all life on earth. Our liver makes Dow Chemical look like a childs chemistry set. Our kidneys are masterpiece of engineering. The eyes are another engineering marvel. All the many organ systems do not work independently. The send chemical messages and neuronal messages to each other to keep the body functioning properly. My thoughts became this can not be an accident but by plan. My atheism was waning. The turning point was physics and the “Big Bang” which did happen. Physicists have probable explanations for the universe from the big bang on. Not one physicist can tell you what was what the instant before the “Big Bang.” Not one!
There is only one explanation which is God Eternal. Oddly the word eternal defies explanation as humans can not understand anything without a beginning.
Note: The bible was written by man and I do believe it has errors. However, I do think the words of Jesus and his disciples are mostly recorded and translated correctly. One must remember it was mortal men that did the recording and translation.
As mentioned evolution fits entirely with my belief in God. He made the universe and guided it the way he saw fit. I thus believe in divine intervention and God. This can not be by accident.
My tagline tells you my history of education. There was not enough room to say “almost chemist.” The chemistry department does not recognize the many hours of pharmacy chemistry nor my course in Geo-Chemistry. If they did I would also have a chemistry degree. PS Geo-Chemistry was the hardest damn course I took in my life. It was basically thermodynamics plus chemistry at temperatures from room temperature to thousands of degrees and pressures at geologic depths down to the mantel. But I did love phase diagrams.
Correct! See my post 38.
Consider Intelligent Design as a theory of origins. The fine tuning required for us to be here is beyond reason. The Earth’s precise placement with a large Moon to keep the Earth in a consistent tilt of 23.5°, Earth’s magnetic field protects from harmful solar and cosmic rays. The oceans provide a natural thermostat for our climate, our Sun emits much of its energy in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum where water is most transparent to light, an inherent property of water.
The solid form of water floats. This is unusual for a compound. If the solid form of water were denser than the liquid phase, the oceans would have frozen over a long ago, preventing any chance of life surviving.
The liquid form of water is only transparent to electromagnetic radiation in the visible range (an inherent property of water). The maximum output of the sun’s energy is in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum, right where water is most transparent to light. These two inherent properties of water (solid form floats, transparent to visible light) and the sun’s perfect surface temperature allowed life on earth to proliferate.
The atmosphere as a protective layer for life on the surface. The ability of life to create and maintain a suitable environment for proliferation. Bio-feeback mechanisms that prevent the environment from becoming hostile to life. The Earth’s magnetic field protects life on Earth from high energy particles emitted by the Sun. Movements of molten rock deep in the Earth generate a magnetic dynamo which provides a strong magnetic field to protect life on Earth.
Mars has a solid core and a weak magnetic field. When Mars core cooled and solidified it lost the ability to protect the surface from solar and cosmic rays. Loss of a magnetic field may have enhanced the loss of lakes and rivers of liquid water on the surface of Mars. Eventually most of the atmosphere boiled off into space leaving a thin remnant of CO2, only 1% of the Earth’s surface pressure.
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.