Does Science Disprove God?

Townhall.com ^ | November 5, 2015 | Jerry Newcombe

[Kaslin]

A Pew Research Poll released last week reports that fifty-nine percent of Americans see science and religion in conflict. But they also found that, "highly religious Americans are less likely than others to see conflict between faith and science."

I'm not a scientist, and I don't play one on TV. But it's amazing to me to see how some scientists like to claim that somehow science has disproven God.

Meanwhile, on Bill Maher's television program last month (10/2/15), he and guest Richard Dawkins essentially declared that science has disproved God.

Bill Maher: "You talk about the wonder of science probably better than anybody and, of course, it's a little bit of a difficult mission because the more you explain how wonderful and amazing science is, the more the other side says, 'Well, yeah, because God did it!"' ....

Richard Dawkins: "I think that the wonder of science above all is precisely that God didn't do it, the wonder, we do understand how it came about, we do understand how life, in particular, came about with nothing but the laws of physics, nothing but atoms bumping into each other, and then filtered through the curious process that Darwin discovered, it gives rise to us and kangaroos and trees and walruses."

And Dawkins added: "What's truly wonderful is that it came about without being designed. If it had been designed, anybody could do that, it's the fact that it came about just through the laws of physics, naturalism is what's so wonderful about it."

Oh, the glories of science. Now we know better than the ancients, who simply swapped one mystery---the universe---for belief in another mystery---God.

Or do we? G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) was a great Christian thinker who noted this: "Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say."

He also said, "Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, 'Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?'The young sceptic says, 'I have a right to think for myself.' But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, 'I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.'"

By using reason, Dawkins concludes that this world is essentially reason-less. His type did not invent science, nor could it have. It takes belief in reason to understand the laws of science---even to agree that there are laws of science. And reason cannot form in the void of random materialism. That is why it is historically true that science was born in Christian Europe.

Alfred North Whitehead said that Christianity is the mother of science because of "the medieval insistence on the rationality of God." A rational God had made a rational universe, and it was the object of the scientists to---in the words of the great astronomer

Energetics, Lord Kelvin

Entomology of Living Insects, Henri Fabre

Field Theory, Michael Faraday

Fluid Mechanics, George Stokes

Galactic Astronomy, Sir William Herschel

Gas Dynamics, Robert Boyle

Genetics, Gregor Mendel

Glacial Geology, Louis Agassiz

Gynecology, James Simpson

Hydrography, Matthew Maury

Hydrostatics, Blaise Pascal

Ichthyology, Louis Agassiz

Isotopic Chemistry, William Ramsey

Model Analysis, Lord Rayleigh

Natural History, John Ray

Non-Euclidean Geometry, Bernard Riemann

Oceanography, Matthew Maury

Optical Mineralogy, David Brewster

So, are Christians anti-science? Not quite. Science was invented by Christians.

Furthermore, we write: "The prevailing philosophy of the Western world today is existentialism, which is irrational. It would not be possible for science to develop in an irrational world because science is based on the fact that if water boils at 212 degrees today, it will boil at 212 degrees tomorrow, and the same thing the next day, and that there are certain laws and regularities that control the universe." No rational God, no rational universe.

So, does science somehow disprove God? Not at all. On the contrary, the heavens declare the glory of God.

In the book, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, D. James Kennedy and I point out (based on the findings of Henry Morris) that virtually all the major branches of science were invented by Bible-believing scientists, including:

Antiseptic surgery, Joseph Lister

Bacteriology, Louis Pasteur

Calculus, Isaac Newton

Celestial Mechanics, Johannes Kepler

Chemistry, Robert Boyle

Comparative Anatomy, Georges Cuvier

Computer Science, Charles Babbage

Dimensional Analysis, Lord Rayleigh

Dynamics, Isaac Newton

Electronics, John Ambrose Fleming

Electrodynamics, James Clerk Maxwell

Electromagnetics, Michael Faraday

Energetics, Lord Kelvin

Entomology of Living Insects, Henri Fabre

Field Theory, Michael Faraday

Fluid Mechanics, George Stokes

Galactic Astronomy, Sir William Herschel

Gas Dynamics, Robert Boyle

Genetics, Gregor Mendel

Glacial Geology, Louis Agassiz

Gynecology, James Simpson

Hydrography, Matthew Maury

Hydrostatics, Blaise Pascal

Ichthyology, Louis Agassiz

Isotopic Chemistry, William Ramsey

Model Analysis, Lord Rayleigh

Natural History, John Ray

Non-Euclidean Geometry, Bernard Riemann

Oceanography, Matthew Maury

Optical Mineralogy, David Brewster

So, are Christians anti-science? Not quite. Science was invented by Christians.

Furthermore, we write: "The prevailing philosophy of the Western world today is existentialism, which is irrational. It would not be possible for science to develop in an irrational world because science is based on the fact that if water boils at 212 degrees today, it will boil at 212 degrees tomorrow, and the same thing the next day, and that there are certain laws and regularities that control the universe." No rational God, no rational universe.

So, does science somehow disprove God? Not at all. On the contrary, the heavens declare the glory of God.

[rjsimmon]

Well, He was, for 3 days... then came the Resurrection.

[Jayster]

[stanne]

God created science. So. No

[TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed]

Well said.

[sparklite2]

“. Or better yet, demonstrate it experimentaly.”

And when they do, will you become an athesit?

[sparklite2]

You couldn’t handle the math.

[Gamecock]

Explore natural phenomena, to understand how nature and all of creation functions.

While I am a part of creation, science doesn’t prove or disprove my existence.

[ThomasThomas]

If scientist can prove man caused globule warning they can disprove god.

[Gil4]

That which calls itself science is in conflict with God, but that’s because the neo-pagans have renamed their religion “science,” and if you reject any of their dogmas you become anti-science.

[Kaslin]

Unfortunately for them, they can’t

[Another Post-American]

In logic, you cannot use a premise to prove itself.

Science was founded upon the belief in a Lawgiver who governs the universe with natural Laws. It is irrational to say that laws exist without a lawgiver.

Thus, science is founded upon the assumption that there is a Lawgiver (God). This means you cannot use science to prove there is a God (since God’s role was assumed to establish science in the first place), but it also means it is irrational to argue that science proves there is no God (since that would contradict the founding premise of science in the first place).

The argument of Dawkins and company is basically “We are certain the universe obeys laws, therefore there cannot be a Lawgiver.” Which is exactly as stupid as it sounds.

[ArGee]

That's why I could never read Dawkins. He would shoot his own argument in the foot faster than I could and I would wonder how anyone could take him seriously and put the book down.

And Dawkins added: "What's truly wonderful is that it came about without being designed. If it had been designed, anybody could do that, it's the fact that it came about just through the laws of physics, naturalism is what's so wonderful about it."

So the natural laws of the universe that didn't exist were what made it possible for the universe to come about without anything bringing it about?

Sadly, this is typical of the best Dawkins has got.

[ThomasThomas]

But fortunately for us.

[ArGee]

You forgot (shudder) Windoze(tm).

[imardmd1]

I suspect that Bill Maher is in the process of accumulating a very large negative balance on the “Payment Due” pages of the books that will be opened at God’s Great White Throne judgment . . . (Revelation 20:12-15).

[Talisker]

Maybe Dawkins would like to explain where physics and energy came from.

[Fightin Whitey]

a Lawgiver who governs the universe with natural Laws

Not trying to bait you, or challenge you or even to disagree.

I don't try to or even care to question "the peace which passeth all understanding"--in my poor faltering sinful way I am simply content to have faith in God and to try to leave His ways to Him.

But your posts are interesting and thoughtful and I am curious as to where your statement above leaves in you in regard to free will.

Truly, I'm not trying to be a wise guy. I'm just guessing that it is something you have given considerable thought to.

Thanks.

[VanDeKoik]

Science can only reveal the magnificence of his creation and how irrelevant we are in it.

[GilesB]

Try me. Where did the laws of physics originate? How do we have confidence that they will be the same tomorrow?

Don’t make logically unsupportable assumptions about what I can or cannot understand. My ability in no way impacts your ability or knowledge.

[Kaslin]

Very well said and so true.