"Science & God: Friends or Foes?" - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)

Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2008Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2008

Belief that God Exists:Does Science Support It? Belief that God Exists:Does Science Support It?

I. Science Began With GodII. Science Departed from GodIII. Science Returns to God


Most Founders of Modern

Science Believed in God Most Founders of Modern

Science Believed in God Johannes Kepler (1571‑1630) Celestial Mechanics,

Physical Astronomy• Blaise Pascal (1623‑1662) Hydrostatics• Robert Boyle (1627‑1691) Chemistry, Gas

Dynamics• Nicolaus Steno (1638‑1687) Stratigraphy• Isaac Newton (1642‑1727) Calculus, Dynamics• Michael Faraday (1791‑1867) Magnetic Theory Charles Babbage (1792‑1871) Computer Science

Johannes Kepler (1571‑1630) Celestial Mechanics, Physical Astronomy

• Blaise Pascal (1623‑1662) Hydrostatics• Robert Boyle (1627‑1691) Chemistry, Gas

Dynamics• Nicolaus Steno (1638‑1687) Stratigraphy• Isaac Newton (1642‑1727) Calculus, Dynamics• Michael Faraday (1791‑1867) Magnetic Theory Charles Babbage (1792‑1871) Computer Science

Louis Agassiz (1807‑1873) Glacial Geology, Ichthyology

• James Simpson (1811‑1870) Gynecology• Gregor Mendel (1822‑1884) Genetics• Louis Pasteur (1822‑1895) Bacteriology• Lord Kelvin (1824‑1907) Energetics, Thermodynamics

• Joseph Lister (1827‑1912) Antiseptic Surgery

• James Maxwell (1831‑1879) Electrodynamics Statistical

Thermodynamics• William Ramsay (1852‑1916) Isotopic Chemistry

Louis Agassiz (1807‑1873) Glacial Geology, Ichthyology

• James Simpson (1811‑1870) Gynecology• Gregor Mendel (1822‑1884) Genetics• Louis Pasteur (1822‑1895) Bacteriology• Lord Kelvin (1824‑1907) Energetics, Thermodynamics

• Joseph Lister (1827‑1912) Antiseptic Surgery

• James Maxwell (1831‑1879) Electrodynamics Statistical

Thermodynamics• William Ramsay (1852‑1916) Isotopic Chemistry

“It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular

motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits.... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and

powerful Being" ("Scholium," 369).

“It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular

motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits.... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and

powerful Being" ("Scholium," 369).

Sir Isaac Newton (1642‑1727): Sir Isaac Newton (1642‑1727):

"May God make it come to pass that my delightful speculation [in Mysterium Cosmographicum] have everywhere among reasonable men fully the effect which I strove to obtain in the publication; namely, that the belief in the creation of the world be fortified through this external support...." (cited by Holton, Origins, 84)

"May God make it come to pass that my delightful speculation [in Mysterium Cosmographicum] have everywhere among reasonable men fully the effect which I strove to obtain in the publication; namely, that the belief in the creation of the world be fortified through this external support...." (cited by Holton, Origins, 84)

Johannes Kepler (1571‑1630): Johannes Kepler (1571‑1630):

The Father of Modern Science:

Francis Bacon (1620)

The Father of Modern Science:

Francis Bacon (1620) "Only let the human race recover that right over nature which belongs to it by divine bequest [in Gen. 1:28], and let power be given it; the exercise thereof will be governed by sound reason and true religion" (Novum Organum, 1:129:119).

"Only let the human race recover that right over nature which belongs to it by divine bequest [in Gen. 1:28], and let power be given it; the exercise thereof will be governed by sound reason and true religion" (Novum Organum, 1:129:119).

Alfred N. Whitehead: "The faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology" (Science in the Modern World, 13).

Alfred N. Whitehead: "The faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology" (Science in the Modern World, 13).

British Thinker: M. B. Foster: "What is the source of the un-Greek elements which...constitute the modernity of modern philosophy? And...what is the source of those un-Greek elements in the modern theory of nature...? The answer to the first question is: The Christian revelation, and the answer to the second: The Christian doctrine of creation" (Mind 1934, 448).

British Thinker: M. B. Foster: "What is the source of the un-Greek elements which...constitute the modernity of modern philosophy? And...what is the source of those un-Greek elements in the modern theory of nature...? The answer to the first question is: The Christian revelation, and the answer to the second: The Christian doctrine of creation" (Mind 1934, 448).

Professor Langdon Gilkey:

“The religious idea of a transcendent Creator

actually made possible rather than hindered the

progress of the scientific understanding of the natural

order. The modern investigators of nature were the first to take seriously in their science the Christian doctrine that nature is created.…” (Maker of Heaven and Earth, 110, 453).

“The religious idea of a transcendent Creator

actually made possible rather than hindered the

progress of the scientific understanding of the natural

order. The modern investigators of nature were the first to take seriously in their science the Christian doctrine that nature is created.…” (Maker of Heaven and Earth, 110, 453).

Summary: Science Began with God Summary: Science Began with God

1. The father of modern science said so.

2. The founders of modern science said so.

3. Historians of modern science said so.

1. The father of modern science said so.

2. The founders of modern science said so.

3. Historians of modern science said so.

I. Science Began With GodII. Science Departed from GodI. Science Began With GodII. Science Departed from God

A. By Limiting Science to Secondary Causes (Francis Bacon 1620)

True knowledge is "knowledge by causes." "The efficient and the material (...as remote [primary] causes...) are but slight and superficial, and contribute little, if anything, to true and active science.” Nature operates by "fixed laws" (Novum Organum 2.3.121).

A. By Limiting Science to Secondary Causes (Francis Bacon 1620)

True knowledge is "knowledge by causes." "The efficient and the material (...as remote [primary] causes...) are but slight and superficial, and contribute little, if anything, to true and active science.” Nature operates by "fixed laws" (Novum Organum 2.3.121).

B. By Separating Science from Primary Causes (Galileo (1564‑1642).

He affirmed that "It is the intention of the Holy Spirit [in Scripture] to teach us how one goes to heaven, and not how the heavens go" (Dutchess..., 11).

The supernatural is the source of the natural world, but the natural world is the proper domain of science (ibid., 17).

Note: Both Bacon and Galileo recognized the difference between a primary Cause (God) of the world’s origin and a secondary causes (natural forces set up by God) which control the regular operation of the world.

B. By Separating Science from Primary Causes (Galileo (1564‑1642).

He affirmed that "It is the intention of the Holy Spirit [in Scripture] to teach us how one goes to heaven, and not how the heavens go" (Dutchess..., 11).

The supernatural is the source of the natural world, but the natural world is the proper domain of science (ibid., 17).

Note: Both Bacon and Galileo recognized the difference between a primary Cause (God) of the world’s origin and a secondary causes (natural forces set up by God) which control the regular operation of the world.

C. By a “God-of-the-Gaps” Error (Sir Isaac

Newton (1642-1727). But Newton invoked divine

intervention to explain the irregular orbit of some planets. This opened him up to a “God-of-the-gaps” charge that God was invoked to explain the operation of the world simply because one could not find a natural cause.

C. By a “God-of-the-Gaps” Error (Sir Isaac

Newton (1642-1727). But Newton invoked divine

intervention to explain the irregular orbit of some planets. This opened him up to a “God-of-the-gaps” charge that God was invoked to explain the operation of the world simply because one could not find a natural cause.

Pierre Simon Laplace (1749‑1827) He rejected a “God-of-the-

Gaps”

Pierre Simon Laplace (1749‑1827) He rejected a “God-of-the-

Gaps” "I must here remark how Newton has erred on this point, from the method which he has otherwise so happily applied" (System 2:4:331). “Such an error arises when "the imagination, impatient to arrive at the causes, takes pleasure in creating hypotheses, and often it changes the facts in order to adapt them to its work“ (Probabilities, 183).

"I must here remark how Newton has erred on this point, from the method which he has otherwise so happily applied" (System 2:4:331). “Such an error arises when "the imagination, impatient to arrive at the causes, takes pleasure in creating hypotheses, and often it changes the facts in order to adapt them to its work“ (Probabilities, 183).

D. By Limiting God to Causing Only the Material World (Kant 1724-1804)

D. By Limiting God to Causing Only the Material World (Kant 1724-1804) "I find matter bound

to certain necessary laws. Out of its universal dissolution and dissipation I see a beautiful and orderly whole quite naturally developing itself. This does not take place by accident, or of chance [but by God]; but it is perceived that natural qualities necessarily bring it about" (Universal Natural History, l3-14).

"I find matter bound to certain necessary laws. Out of its universal dissolution and dissipation I see a beautiful and orderly whole quite naturally developing itself. This does not take place by accident, or of chance [but by God]; but it is perceived that natural qualities necessarily bring it about" (Universal Natural History, l3-14).

Kant’s Naturalism: "We can here say with intelligent certainty and without audacity: 'Give me matter, and I will construct a world out of it!‘” But "...are we in a position to say: `Give me matter and I will show you how a caterpillar can be produced?'" His answer was a bold Yes! But, he believed that "...the origin of the whole present constitution of the universe, will become intelligible before the production of a single herb or a caterpillar by mechanical causes, will become distinctly and completely understood" (Universal Natural History, 17).

Kant’s Naturalism: "We can here say with intelligent certainty and without audacity: 'Give me matter, and I will construct a world out of it!‘” But "...are we in a position to say: `Give me matter and I will show you how a caterpillar can be produced?'" His answer was a bold Yes! But, he believed that "...the origin of the whole present constitution of the universe, will become intelligible before the production of a single herb or a caterpillar by mechanical causes, will become distinctly and completely understood" (Universal Natural History, 17).

E. By Viewing Natural Laws as Immutable (Laplace 1749-1827)

E. By Viewing Natural Laws as Immutable (Laplace 1749-1827) For "All events, even those which on account of their insignificance do not seem to follow the great laws of nature, are a result of it just as necessarily as the revolutions of the sun." It is only "In ignorance of the ties which unite such events to the entire system of the universe, they have been made to depend upon final causes or upon hazard [chance] For "all the effects of nature are only mathematical results of a small number of immutable laws" (Laplace, Probabilities 3, 177).

For "All events, even those which on account of their insignificance do not seem to follow the great laws of nature, are a result of it just as necessarily as the revolutions of the sun." It is only "In ignorance of the ties which unite such events to the entire system of the universe, they have been made to depend upon final causes or upon hazard [chance] For "all the effects of nature are only mathematical results of a small number of immutable laws" (Laplace, Probabilities 3, 177).

Blind Force Can Explain All Blind Force Can Explain AllLaplace also rejected Newton's idea that

a blind force "could never make all the planets move thus, with some irregularities hardly perceivable...." He asked, "...could not this arrangement of the planets be itself an effect of the laws of motion; and could not the supreme intelligence which Newton makes to interfere, make it to depend on a more general phenomenon? such as, according to us, a nebulous matter distributed in various masses throughout the immensity of the heavens" (Systems, 2:4:332).

Laplace also rejected Newton's idea that a blind force "could never make all the planets move thus, with some irregularities hardly perceivable...." He asked, "...could not this arrangement of the planets be itself an effect of the laws of motion; and could not the supreme intelligence which Newton makes to interfere, make it to depend on a more general phenomenon? such as, according to us, a nebulous matter distributed in various masses throughout the immensity of the heavens" (Systems, 2:4:332).

Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) Natural

Laws are Immutable "Nothing then, comes to pass in nature in contravention to her universal laws, for...she keeps a fixed and immutable order." Hence, "a miracle, whether in contravention to, or beyond, nature, is a mere absurdity" (Theologico-Politico Tractatus. (1670), 1.83, 87, 92).

Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) Natural

Laws are Immutable "Nothing then, comes to pass in nature in contravention to her universal laws, for...she keeps a fixed and immutable order." Hence, "a miracle, whether in contravention to, or beyond, nature, is a mere absurdity" (Theologico-Politico Tractatus. (1670), 1.83, 87, 92).

Laplace and NapoleanLaplace and Napolean

When Napolean enquired

about the absence of God in

Laplace’s scientific views,

Laplace is said to have

replied: “Sir, I have no need

for that hypothesis.”

When Napolean enquired

about the absence of God in

Laplace’s scientific views,

Laplace is said to have

replied: “Sir, I have no need

for that hypothesis.”

Principles Operating in Modern SciencePrinciples Operating in Modern Science

1. Principle of Causality: All events have a cause.

2. Principle of Uniformity (Analogy): Past events have similar causes to present ones.

3. Principle of Continuity: There is an unbroken chain of causal events extending into the remote past.

4. If a Primary Cause [God] exists, He is responsible for the origin of the world, but secondary causes (natural forces) are responsible for the operation of the natural world after that.

1. Principle of Causality: All events have a cause.

2. Principle of Uniformity (Analogy): Past events have similar causes to present ones.

3. Principle of Continuity: There is an unbroken chain of causal events extending into the remote past.

4. If a Primary Cause [God] exists, He is responsible for the origin of the world, but secondary causes (natural forces) are responsible for the operation of the natural world after that.

1. The Principle of Causality


Francis Bacon: True knowledge is "knowledge by causes” (Novum Organum, Book 2, no. II).





Laplace: He speaks of “…the evident principle that a thing cannot occur without a cause which produces it" (Probabilities, 4).







Hume: “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that a thing could arise without a cause” (Hume, Letters, 1.187).



Hume: “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that a thing could arise without a cause” (Hume, Letters, 1.187).

2. The Principle Analogy

(Uniformity) “The present is the key to the past.”

2. The Principle Analogy

(Uniformity) “The present is the key to the past.”

“Analogy is based upon the probability that similar things have causes of the same kind and produce the same effects." And "this probability increases as the similitude becomes more perfect" (Laplace, Probabilities, 180). Thus, scientific views about the past are derived with "the aid of proofs drawn from these analogies [with the present]" (ibid., 100).

“Analogy is based upon the probability that similar things have causes of the same kind and produce the same effects." And "this probability increases as the similitude becomes more perfect" (Laplace, Probabilities, 180). Thus, scientific views about the past are derived with "the aid of proofs drawn from these analogies [with the present]" (ibid., 100).

3. The Principle of Continuity

3. The Principle of Continuity

Laplace believed "we ought then to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its anterior state and as the cause of the one which is to follow." Thus, "present events are connected with preceding ones by a tie based upon the evident principle that a thing cannot occur without a cause which produces it" (Laplace, Probabilities, 4).

Laplace believed "we ought then to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its anterior state and as the cause of the one which is to follow." Thus, "present events are connected with preceding ones by a tie based upon the evident principle that a thing cannot occur without a cause which produces it" (Laplace, Probabilities, 4).

4. Primary Cause is responsible for the origin of the natural world, but secondary (natural) causes are responsible for its operation.

4. Primary Cause is responsible for the origin of the natural world, but secondary (natural) causes are responsible for its operation.

4. Primary Cause is responsible for the origin of the natural world, but secondary (natural) causes are responsible for its operation.Conclusions:1. If the universe is eternal, then there is no

needs for a primary Cause to get it started (as the principle of continuity shows).


needs for a primary Cause to get it started (as the principle of continuity shows).


needs for a primary Cause to get it started (as the principle of continuity shows).2. But if the universe is not eternal, then it

needs a primary Cause to get it started (as the principle of causality states).


needs for a primary Cause to get it started (as the principle of continuity shows).2. But if the universe is not eternal, then it

needs a primary Cause to get it started (as the principle of causality states).

3. Supernatural Cause (God) should not be used to explain the regular operation of the world (for that is a “God-of-gaps” fallacy).

4. If life is eternal, then there is not need for a primary cause to get it started.

5. If life is not eternal, then it needs a cause to get it started (as the principle of causality demands).

6. A primary cause(s) in the past must be like one(s) in the present (as the principle of analogy dictates).

3. Supernatural Cause (God) should not be used to explain the regular operation of the world (for that is a “God-of-gaps” fallacy).

4. If life is eternal, then there is not need for a primary cause to get it started.

5. If life is not eternal, then it needs a cause to get it started (as the principle of causality demands).

6. A primary cause(s) in the past must be like one(s) in the present (as the principle of analogy dictates).

Reopening the Door to God:

With a Big Bang!

Voiding the Principle of Continuity

Voiding the Principle of Continuity

"There is a kind of religion in science. It is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe.... Every effect must have its cause: There is no first cause.... This religious faith of the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 113-114).

"There is a kind of religion in science. It is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe.... Every effect must have its cause: There is no first cause.... This religious faith of the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 113-114).



III. Science Returns to GodIII. Science Returns to God

A. Philosophical Response

B. Scientific Response



A. Philosophical ResponseA. Philosophical Response1. The principle of continuity only applies

if the universe had no beginning.

2. The principle of analogy shows that some causes are intelligent causes.

3. Not all things that operate by natural laws have a natural cause for their origin.

1. The principle of continuity only applies if the universe had no beginning.


3. Not all things that operate by natural laws have a natural cause for their origin.

1. The Philosophical Argument for a Beginning of the Universe

1. The Philosophical Argument for a Beginning of the Universe

The Kalam Argument: 1. An infinite series of moments has no end.2. But the series of all moments before the

present ends with the present moment.3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number

of moments before the present moment. Hence, time (the temporal world) had a

beginning.

The Kalam Argument: 1. An infinite series of moments has no end.2. But the series of all moments before the

present ends with the present moment.3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number

of moments before the present moment. Hence, time (the temporal world) had a

beginning.

God from a Skeptics PremisesGod from a Skeptics PremisesDavid Hume said:1. Every event has a cause: “I never asserted so absurd a

proposition as that a thing could arise without a cause” (Hume, Letters, 1.187).

2. Time had a beginning: Because “An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgment is not corrupted…would ever be able to admit of it” (Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sect. XII, Part II).

3. Therefore, time (the temporal world) had a Cause.

David Hume said:1. Every event has a cause: “I never asserted so absurd a

proposition as that a thing could arise without a cause” (Hume, Letters, 1.187).

2. Time had a beginning: Because “An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgment is not corrupted…would ever be able to admit of it” (Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sect. XII, Part II).

3. Therefore, time (the temporal world) had a Cause.

A. Philosophical ResponseA. Philosophical Response1. The principle of continuity only applies

if the universe had no beginning.


1. The principle of continuity only applies if the universe had no beginning.




If the present is the key to the past, then the kind of cause that produces a certain kind of event in the present (which we know by observation and repetition) calls for a similar cause in the past for that kind of event.

If the present is the key to the past, then the kind of cause that produces a certain kind of event in the present (which we know by observation and repetition) calls for a similar cause in the past for that kind of event.

Two Types of Causes Natural Intelligent


This is known by observation and repetition in the present This is known by observation and repetition in the present

NaturalNatural IntelligentIntelligent

TWO TYPES OF CAUSESTWO TYPES OF CAUSES

Sand DuneSand Dune Sand CastleSand Castle

Two Types of Causes Two Types of CausesNatural IntelligentWater Falls Power Plant

Crystals Chandelier

Sand Dunes Sand Castle

Round stones Arrowheads

Clouds Skywriting

This is known by observation

and repetition in the present

Natural IntelligentWater Falls Power Plant

Crystals Chandelier



Clouds Skywriting

This is known by observation

and repetition in the present

Sciences with Intelligent CausesSciences with Intelligent Causes

• • 1. Archaeology (pottery) 2. Forensic science (homicide) 3. Cryptology (code)

4. SETI (message from outer space)

5. Information Theory (letter frequencies)

6. Intelligent Design (ID)--same principles

The Fallacy of Naturalism: Assuming all causes are natural causes. 1) This begs the question, and, 2) It is not scientific since it is contrary to observation and repetition in the present.

1. Archaeology (pottery) 2. Forensic science (homicide) 3. Cryptology (code)

4. SETI (message from outer space)

5. Information Theory (letter frequencies)

6. Intelligent Design (ID)--same principles

The Fallacy of Naturalism: Assuming all causes are natural causes. 1) This begs the question, and, 2) It is not scientific since it is contrary to observation and repetition in the present.

A. Philosophical ResponseA. Philosophical Response

1. The principle of continuity does not apply since the universe had a beginning.


3. Not all things that operate by natural laws have a natural cause.

1. The principle of continuity does not apply since the universe had a beginning.


3. Not all things that operate by natural laws have a natural cause.

Illustration: A MotorIllustration: A Motor• Its Origin Its Operation• How it Originates How it Operates• (by an intelligent cause) (by natural laws)

» Conductor» Current (spark)» Power source (gas)» Law of gravity » Laws of friction» Laws of motion

• Laws if tension• Laws of combustion

– (which never produce a motor)

• Its Origin Its Operation• How it Originates How it Operates• (by an intelligent cause) (by natural laws)

» Conductor» Current (spark)» Power source (gas)» Law of gravity » Laws of friction» Laws of motion

• Laws if tension• Laws of combustion

– (which never produce a motor)

What About the Origin OfWhat About the Origin Of a bacterial rotary motor?a bacterial rotary motor? What About the Origin OfWhat About the Origin Of a bacterial rotary motor?a bacterial rotary motor?

Analogy calls for an intelligent Cause of it too Analogy calls for an intelligent Cause of it too

Response to Modern NaturalismResponse to Modern Naturalism





Response to Modern NaturalismResponse to Modern Naturalism

A. Philosophical ResponseB. Scientific Response 1. The Origin of the Universe 2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe 3. The Specified Complexity of Life

A. Philosophical ResponseB. Scientific Response 1. The Origin of the Universe 2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe 3. The Specified Complexity of Life

B. Scientific ResponseB. Scientific Response

1. The Argument from the Origin of the Universe:

1. Everything that begins had a cause.

2. The physical universe had a beginning.

3. Therefore, the physical universe had a Cause.


1. Everything that begins had a cause.

2. The physical universe had a beginning.

3. Therefore, the physical universe had a Cause.

Five lines of Evidence that the Universe had a Beginning Five lines of Evidence that the Universe had a Beginning

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING

RADIATION ECHO

GREAT MASS OF MATTER

EINSTEIN’S GENERAL RELATIVITY

Second Law of ThermodynamicsSecond Law of Thermodynamics

•

“Once hydrogen has been burned within that star and converted to heavier elements, it can never be restored to its original state. Minute by minute and year by year, as hydrogen is used up in stars, the supply of this element in the universe grows smaller” (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16).

“Once hydrogen has been burned within that star and converted to heavier elements, it can never be restored to its original state. Minute by minute and year by year, as hydrogen is used up in stars, the supply of this element in the universe grows smaller” (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16).

UNUSABLEENERGY

Note:Note:If the universe is running out of useable energy, then it must have had a beginning (since it is not possible to run out of an infinite amount of energy).

If the universe is running out of useable energy, then it must have had a beginning (since it is not possible to run out of an infinite amount of energy).

Universe is ExpandingUniverse is Expanding

"He [Alan Sandage] compiled information on 42 galaxies, ranging out in space as far as six billion light years from us. His measurements indicate that the Universe was expanding more rapidly in the past than it is today. This result lends further support to the belief that the Universe exploded into being” (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 95).

"He [Alan Sandage] compiled information on 42 galaxies, ranging out in space as far as six billion light years from us. His measurements indicate that the Universe was expanding more rapidly in the past than it is today. This result lends further support to the belief that the Universe exploded into being” (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 95).

Radiation EchoRadiation Echo "No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the Steady State theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed" (Jastrow GA, 15).

"No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the Steady State theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed" (Jastrow GA, 15).

Great Mass of Energy DiscoveredGreat Mass of Energy Discovered

The Hubble Space Telescope (1992) found a great mass of matter predicted by the Big Bang theory. "By peering back into the beginning of time, a satellite finds the largest and oldest structure ever observed--evidence of how the universe took shape 15 billion years ago." One scientist exclaimed, "It's like looking at God" (Time, May 4, 1993, 62, emphasis added).

The Hubble Space Telescope (1992) found a great mass of matter predicted by the Big Bang theory. "By peering back into the beginning of time, a satellite finds the largest and oldest structure ever observed--evidence of how the universe took shape 15 billion years ago." One scientist exclaimed, "It's like looking at God" (Time, May 4, 1993, 62, emphasis added).

Einstein’s General Relativity

Einstein’s General Relativity

He argued “There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e., a

space without a field. Space- time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field” (in Heeren, Shew Me God, 93).

But matter exploded into being. Thus, time must have had a beginning.

He argued “There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e., a

space without a field. Space- time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field” (in Heeren, Shew Me God, 93).

But matter exploded into being. Thus, time must have had a beginning.

Einstein’s “Fudge Factor”

Einstein’s “Fudge Factor”

• Being a pantheist (and naturalist) like Spinoza, Einstein tried to reject a beginning of the universe by introducing a "fudge factor" in his equation.

• However, Einstein later admitted his error and spoke of his desire "to know how God created the universe." He said, "I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this of that element. I want to know His [God's] thought, the rest are details" (in Heeren, Shew Me God, 84, 109).

• Being a pantheist (and naturalist) like Spinoza, Einstein tried to reject a beginning of the universe by introducing a "fudge factor" in his equation.

• However, Einstein later admitted his error and spoke of his desire "to know how God created the universe." He said, "I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this of that element. I want to know His [God's] thought, the rest are details" (in Heeren, Shew Me God, 84, 109).

Robert Jastrow: Back to the Bible “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commence suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy" (God & the Astronomers, 14).

Robert Jastrow: Back to the Bible “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commence suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy" (God & the Astronomers, 14).

"Astronomers now find that they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation.... And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover" (Jastrow CT, (8/6/82), 15).

"Astronomers now find that they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation.... And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover" (Jastrow CT, (8/6/82), 15).

Science Leads to the SupernaturalScience Leads to the Supernatural

Science Ends With a BeginningScience Ends With a Beginning

"The scientists pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'" (Jastrow, GA, 115).

Science ends where it began-with God!

"The scientists pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'" (Jastrow, GA, 115).

Science ends where it began-with God!

An Agnostic AstronomerAn Agnostic Astronomer

–

• "That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact" (Jastrow in Christianity Today [1982], 8).

• "That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact" (Jastrow in Christianity Today [1982], 8).

Science Returns to GodScience Returns to God"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain 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" (Jastrow, GA, 116).

"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain 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" (Jastrow, GA, 116).

B. Scientific ResponseB. Scientific Response1. The Argument from the Origin of the

Universe: a. Everything that begins had a cause.

b. The physical universe had a beginning

c. Therefore, the physical universe had a Cause.


a. Everything that begins had a cause.

b. The physical universe had a beginning

c. Therefore, the physical universe had a Cause.

B. Scientific ResponseB. Scientific Response1. The Argument from the Origin of the

Universe: a. Everything that begins had a cause. b. The physical universe had a beginning c. Therefore, the physical universe had a

Cause.[But the Cause of the whole natural world

cannot be a natural cause. Hence, there is a supernatural Cause of the natural world.]


a. Everything that begins had a cause. b. The physical universe had a beginning c. Therefore, the physical universe had a

Cause.[But the Cause of the whole natural world

cannot be a natural cause. Hence, there is a supernatural Cause of the natural world.]

Objection AnsweredObjection AnsweredObjection: Doesn’t the First Law of thermodynamics

show the world is eternal when it states that “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed”?

Response:1. This is a false statement of the First Law which should

be stated: “The amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.” The naturalist’s misstatement is based on philosophical speculation, not empirical observation (as operation science is).

2. The First Law says nothing about the origin of the universe; it leaves that question open.

3. The Second Law closes the question by showing that the universe had a beginning (because the amount of useable energy is decreasing).

Objection: Doesn’t the First Law of thermodynamics show the world is eternal when it states that “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed”?

Response:1. This is a false statement of the First Law which should

be stated: “The amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.” The naturalist’s misstatement is based on philosophical speculation, not empirical observation (as operation science is).

2. The First Law says nothing about the origin of the universe; it leaves that question open.

3. The Second Law closes the question by showing that the universe had a beginning (because the amount of useable energy is decreasing).

Response to Modern NaturalismResponse to Modern NaturalismA. Philosophical ResponseB. Scientific Response 1. The Origin of the Universe 2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe From the beginning the universe was fine-

tuned for the emergence of human life. Without that advanced pre-tuning, human life would never have emerged.

A. Philosophical ResponseB. Scientific Response 1. The Origin of the Universe 2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe From the beginning the universe was fine-

tuned for the emergence of human life. Without that advanced pre-tuning, human life would never have emerged.

The Anthropic Principle The Anthropic Principle

"The anthropic principle is the most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It is a very theistic result" (Jastrow, Christianity Today [1982], 17).

"The anthropic principle is the most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It is a very theistic result" (Jastrow, Christianity Today [1982], 17).

Universe was Fine-Tuned for Human Life Universe was Fine-Tuned for Human Life1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life.

2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist.

3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for life.

4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life.

5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for life.

6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life.

7. The speed of light is proper amount for life.

8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together.

9. The distance between stars is necessary for life.

10. The cosmological constant (energy density of space) is minutely right for matter to exist.

11. The right amount of seismic activity is needed for life.

12. The position of Jupiter protects life on earth.

There are more than 100 of these!

1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life.

2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist.

3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for life.

4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life.

5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for life.

6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life.

7. The speed of light is proper amount for life.

8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together.

9. The distance between stars is necessary for life.

10. The cosmological constant (energy density of space) is minutely right for matter to exist.

11. The right amount of seismic activity is needed for life.

12. The position of Jupiter protects life on earth.

There are more than 100 of these!

Who Designed the Universe?

Guillermo GonzalezGuillermo Gonzalez

A Super-Intelligent CauseA Super-Intelligent Cause

"The harmony of natural law . . .reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection" (in Heeren, Shew Me God, 66).

"The harmony of natural law . . .reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection" (in Heeren, Shew Me God, 66).

I. Science Began With GodII. Science Departed from GodIII. Science Returns to God A. Philosophical Response B. Scientific Response 1. The Origin of the Universe 2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe 3. The Specified Complexity of Life

I. Science Began With GodII. Science Departed from GodIII. Science Returns to God A. Philosophical Response B. Scientific Response 1. The Origin of the Universe 2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe 3. The Specified Complexity of Life

What is Specified Complexity?What is Specified Complexity? Leslie Orgel: “Living organisms are distinguished by their

specified complexity. Crystals… fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity” (The Origin of Life, 189).

Crystals are specified but not complex.

A Crystal: Star Star Star Star Star Star

Random polymers are complex but not specified.

Polypeptide: TGELSIDHT BTWORMHOC PUOXHDMBT

Life is both specified and complex.

Protein: “A star is shinning brightly in the sky.”

Leslie Orgel: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals… fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity” (The Origin of Life, 189).

Crystals are specified but not complex.

A Crystal: Star Star Star Star Star Star

Random polymers are complex but not specified.

Polypeptide: TGELSIDHT BTWORMHOC PUOXHDMBT

Life is both specified and complex.

Protein: “A star is shinning brightly in the sky.”

Languages Have Specified ComplexityLanguages Have Specified Complexity

Hubert Yockey: “The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written languages and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981).

Hubert Yockey: “The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written languages and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981).

Information TheoryInformation Theory Letter sequence

reveals whether information is being conveyed by a series of letters, even if one does not know the language.

Letter sequence reveals whether information is being conveyed by a series of letters, even if one does not know the language.

Claude E. ShannonClaude E. Shannon

Intelligent Design from Intelligent Design from

an Intelligent Being!an Intelligent Being!

Intelligent Design from Intelligent Design from

an Intelligent Being!an Intelligent Being!

TTTT KKKK EEEE OOOO UUUU

HHHH GGGG RRRR BBBB

MMMM

TT

TTTT EEEE EEEE

AAAA

AAAA AAAAGGGG

OOOO MMMM__

Former Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle Former Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle

"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shuffling of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero." Thus, based on analogy it is reasonable to postulate "...an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life" (Hoyle, Evolution from Space, 3, 143).

"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shuffling of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero." Thus, based on analogy it is reasonable to postulate "...an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life" (Hoyle, Evolution from Space, 3, 143).

Former Atheist Sir Fred HoyleFormer Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle “Believing that life

happened by pure change is like believing that a Boeing 747 resulted from a tornado raging through a junkyard! [even if the junk was Boeing 747 parts]”

“Believing that life happened by pure change is like believing that a Boeing 747 resulted from a tornado raging through a junkyard! [even if the junk was Boeing 747 parts]”

{GC Cytosine Guanine

3

Genetic Code’s Four Nucleotides

Sugar &Phosphate Molecules

Base Pairs

TAAdenine Thymine

A

T

G

C

A

G

T

A

C

T

1 2

4

One Ameba =1,000 Sets

One Ameba =1,000 Sets

Former Atheist Sir Fred HoyleFormer Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature” (“The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science (November, 1981), 12.

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature” (“The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science (November, 1981), 12.

SETI: One Message Proves an Intelligent Cause (Carl Sagan)

SETI: One Message Proves an Intelligent Cause (Carl Sagan)

Human Brain = 20 million volumes of genetic information!

Human Brain = 20 million volumes of genetic information!

20 million = 1000 volumes

on each seat!

20 million = 1000 volumes

on each seat!

Former Atheist Alan Sandage Former Atheist Alan Sandage

"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. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception. The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbeliev- able it becomes unless there is some kind of organizing principle--an architect for believers...." (Sandage, Truth (1985), 54).

"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. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception. The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbeliev- able it becomes unless there is some kind of organizing principle--an architect for believers...." (Sandage, Truth (1985), 54).

Response of Atheists:“Nature-of-the-Gap Fallacy”

Response of Atheists:“Nature-of-the-Gap Fallacy”

“It became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that [naturalistic] scientific men find very difficult of acceptance” (J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science, 94).

“It became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that [naturalistic] scientific men find very difficult of acceptance” (J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science, 94).

The Argument

from Specified Complexity

1. Human language has specified complexity.

2. Life (DNA) has specified complexity.

3. The letter frequency is the same in both life (DNA) and in a language.

4. But language has an intelligent creator.

5. Therefore, life has an intelligent creator.

The Argument

from Specified Complexity

1. Human language has specified complexity.

2. Life (DNA) has specified complexity.

3. The letter frequency is the same in both life (DNA) and in a language.

4. But language has an intelligent creator.

5. Therefore, life has an intelligent creator.

Why Positing Natural Causes for Specified Complexity is not Scientific

Why Positing Natural Causes for Specified Complexity is not Scientific

1. Science is based on observation and repetition.

2. There is no observed repetition in the present that natural causes produce specified complexity.

3. So, there is no scientific basis for positing a natural cause for specified complexity.

4. Science about the past is based on the principle of uniformity (the present is key to the past).

5. Hence, the only scientific basis for positing a cause for the specified complexity of first life in the universe is evidence for an intelligent cause.

1. Science is based on observation and repetition.

2. There is no observed repetition in the present that natural causes produce specified complexity.

3. So, there is no scientific basis for positing a natural cause for specified complexity.

4. Science about the past is based on the principle of uniformity (the present is key to the past).

5. Hence, the only scientific basis for positing a cause for the specified complexity of first life in the universe is evidence for an intelligent cause.

What About “The God-of-the-Gap” Objection?

What About “The God-of-the-Gap” Objection?

1. It is based on the false premise that all causes are natural causes.

A. But the First Cause was not.

B. An intelligent causes are not natural ones.

2. It is not the lack of evidence that calls for an intelligent cause; It is the

presence of specific evidence that calls for an intelligent cause.

1. It is based on the false premise that all causes are natural causes.

A. But the First Cause was not.

B. An intelligent causes are not natural ones.

2. It is not the lack of evidence that calls for an intelligent cause; It is the

presence of specific evidence that calls for an intelligent cause.



NaturalNatural IntelligentIntelligent

TWO TYPES OF CAUSESTWO TYPES OF CAUSES

Sand Dune Sand CastleSand Castle


Crystals Chandelier



Clouds Skywriting


Crystals Chandelier



Clouds Skywriting

Principles of Science Lead to GodPrinciples of Science Lead to God1. Principle of Causality: All events have a cause (leads to God as Cause of

the universe).

2. Principle of Uniformity (Analogy): Past events have similar causes to present ones (leads to an intelligent Cause of the universe {via anthropic principle} and of first life {via specified complexity}).

3. Principle of Continuity: There is an unbroken chain of causal events extending into the remote past (This is falsified by Big Bang evidence).

4. Primary Cause [God] is responsible for the origin of the world and life (which are singularities), but secondary causes (natural forces) are responsible for the regular operation of the natural world (which makes creation possible and preserves natural law from a “God-of-the gaps” action in the operation of the regular events of the natural world).

1. Principle of Causality: All events have a cause (leads to God as Cause of the universe).

2. Principle of Uniformity (Analogy): Past events have similar causes to present ones (leads to an intelligent Cause of the universe {via anthropic principle} and of first life {via specified complexity}).

3. Principle of Continuity: There is an unbroken chain of causal events extending into the remote past (This is falsified by Big Bang evidence).

4. Primary Cause [God] is responsible for the origin of the world and life (which are singularities), but secondary causes (natural forces) are responsible for the regular operation of the natural world (which makes creation possible and preserves natural law from a “God-of-the gaps” action in the operation of the regular events of the natural world).

If God, then Miracles and Natural Law If God, then Miracles and Natural Law

“But if we admit God, must we admit miracles? Indeed, indeed, you have no security against it. That is the bargain.” Theology says. “Admit God and the risk of a few miracles, and I in return will ratify your faith in the uniformity as regards the overwhelming majority of events” (C. S. Lewis, Miracles, 109).

“But if we admit God, must we admit miracles? Indeed, indeed, you have no security against it. That is the bargain.” Theology says. “Admit God and the risk of a few miracles, and I in return will ratify your faith in the uniformity as regards the overwhelming majority of events” (C. S. Lewis, Miracles, 109).

What About “The God-of-the-Gap” Objection?What About “The God-of-the-Gap” Objection?1. “God-of-the-gaps” is a valid objection when applied to

empirical science, that is, the operation of the universe (because regular patterns are always produced by natural law causes, even if we do not know what they are).

2. But singularities like the origin of matter and of life are not regular events. Hence, they do not automatically call for a natural cause.

2. When applies to singularities, it is based on the false premise that all causes are natural causes.a. The First Cause of the universe was not.b. Intelligent causes are not.

3. It is not the absence of evidence that calls for an intelligent cause; It is the presence of specific evidence that calls for an intelligent cause.

1. “God-of-the-gaps” is a valid objection when applied to empirical science, that is, the operation of the universe (because regular patterns are always produced by natural law causes, even if we do not know what they are).

2. But singularities like the origin of matter and of life are not regular events. Hence, they do not automatically call for a natural cause.

2. When applies to singularities, it is based on the false premise that all causes are natural causes.a. The First Cause of the universe was not.b. Intelligent causes are not.

3. It is not the absence of evidence that calls for an intelligent cause; It is the presence of specific evidence that calls for an intelligent cause.

Forensic Science Empirical Science (Origin Science) (Operation Science) Studies the Past Studies the Present Studies Singularities Studies Regularities Events are Unrepeatable Events are Repeatable How Things Originate How Things Operate

Different Principles Causality Observation Uniformity (Analogy) Repetition

Forensic Science Empirical Science (Origin Science) (Operation Science) Studies the Past Studies the Present Studies Singularities Studies Regularities Events are Unrepeatable Events are Repeatable How Things Originate How Things Operate

Different Principles Causality Observation Uniformity (Analogy) Repetition

Science: Two Types Science: Two Types

ConclusionConclusion1. It is wrong to use a “God-of-the-gaps” move in

empirical science (dealing with present regular events (as Newton did).

2. It is not a “God-of-the-gap” fallacy to invoke an intelligent cause of singular events that show evidence of intelligent causality.

3. In fact, it is a “Nature-of-the gap” fallacy to assume a natural cause in the face of evidence for an intelligent cause (such as specified complexity of first life and the anthropic evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe).

1. It is wrong to use a “God-of-the-gaps” move in empirical science (dealing with present regular events (as Newton did).

2. It is not a “God-of-the-gap” fallacy to invoke an intelligent cause of singular events that show evidence of intelligent causality.

3. In fact, it is a “Nature-of-the gap” fallacy to assume a natural cause in the face of evidence for an intelligent cause (such as specified complexity of first life and the anthropic evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe).

“Nature-of-the-gap” Fallacy

“Nature-of-the-gap” Fallacy “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against

common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between [naturalistic] science and the supernatural. We take the side of [naturalistic) science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs… because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a materialistic explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes…. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” (Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, 1/9/96).

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between [naturalistic] science and the supernatural. We take the side of [naturalistic) science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs… because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a materialistic explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes…. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” (Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, 1/9/96).


Crystals Chandelier



Clouds Skywriting

There is no scientific evidence based on observation and repetition in the present for a natural cause of anything in the right column!


Crystals Chandelier



Clouds Skywriting

There is no scientific evidence based on observation and repetition in the present for a natural cause of anything in the right column!

Belief that God Exists:Does Science Support It? Belief that God Exists:Does Science Support It?

Former Atheist Francis Collins:Former Atheist Francis Collins:

“The Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces us to the conclusion that nature had a definite beginning. I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that” (The Language of God, 67).

“The Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces us to the conclusion that nature had a definite beginning. I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that” (The Language of God, 67).

“Those scientists who point to the Mind of God do not merely advance a series of arguments or a process of syllogistic reasoning. Rather, they propound a vision of reality that emerges from the conceptual heart of modern science and imposes itself on the rational mind. It is a vision that I personally find compelling and irrefutable” (p. 112).

World famous formerAtheist: Antony Flew World famous formerAtheist: Antony Flew



God was Rediscovered --

God was Rediscovered --• With A Big Bang

• In a Little Box

Some Scientist’s Initial ReactionsSome Scientist’s Initial Reactions•Arthur Eddington: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me…. I should like to find a genuine loophole" (in Heeren, 81).

•Einstein: “This circumstance [of an expanding Universe] irritates me." And "To admit such possibilities seems senseless" Why? "I believe in Spinoza's [pantheistic] God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists" (in Jastrow, GA, 28).

•Arthur Eddington: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me…. I should like to find a genuine loophole" (in Heeren, 81).

•Einstein: “This circumstance [of an expanding Universe] irritates me." And "To admit such possibilities seems senseless" Why? "I believe in Spinoza's [pantheistic] God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists" (in Jastrow, GA, 28).

Other Reactions to a Supernatural Creator:

Other Reactions to a Supernatural Creator:

• Julian Huxley: "For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous..." (Huxley, RR, 32, emphasis added).

Friedrich Nietzsche: "If one were to prove this God of the Christians to us, we should be even less able to believe in him" (Antichrist, 627).

• Julian Huxley: "For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous..." (Huxley, RR, 32, emphasis added).

Friedrich Nietzsche: "If one were to prove this God of the Christians to us, we should be even less able to believe in him" (Antichrist, 627).

St. Paul’s Declaration: St. Paul’s Declaration:

•He speaks of those who “…suppress the truth by their wickedness because what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-20).

•He speaks of those who “…suppress the truth by their wickedness because what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-20).

Creation vs. Evolution: The Scientific EvidenceCreation vs. Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2006Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2006

Age of Mammals

Age of Fishes

Age of Invertebrates

Age of Reptiles

Age of Amphibians

Macroevolution - Unlimited Change

Does Similarity Prove a Common Does Similarity Prove a Common Ancestor or a Common Creator?Ancestor or a Common Creator?

Does Progress Prove Evolution?Does Progress Prove Evolution?

Or Does it Show Intelligent Intervention?Or Does it Show Intelligent Intervention?

Suppose a Link is MissingSuppose a Link is Missing

Suppose a Link is MissingSuppose a Link is Missing

Does Finding it Prove Evolution?Does Finding it Prove Evolution?

Micro-Biologist Michael BeheMicro-Biologist Michael Behe

"No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner--no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion." He adds, "Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects of DNA reduplication, electron transport, telomere synthesis, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and more" (Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 187, 160).

"No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner--no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion." He adds, "Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects of DNA reduplication, electron transport, telomere synthesis, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and more" (Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 187, 160).

"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science" (Behe, DBB, 193).

"Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity" (ibid.).

"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science" (Behe, DBB, 193).

"Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity" (ibid.).

Atheism: Nothing made something from

nothing!

Atheism: Nothing made something from

nothing!Anthony Kenny: "A proponent of [the big bang] theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came form nothing and by nothing" (Five Ways, 66).

Anthony Kenny: "A proponent of [the big bang] theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came form nothing and by nothing" (Five Ways, 66).

Response to Methodological

Atheism 1. It correctly limits scientific understanding

about the present regularities to secondary (natural) causes (Newton's "God-of-the-gap” is wrong).

2. It correctly assumes principles of causality and uniformity without which we can’t know the past.

3. However, Laplace wrongly assumes that:a. All events need a natural cause. b. Analogy calling for an intelligent cause does not apply to past events of origin.c. There is an unbroken regress of natural

causes (This begs the question in favor of naturalism)

1. It correctly limits scientific understanding about the present regularities to secondary (natural) causes (Newton's "God-of-the-gap” is wrong).

2. It correctly assumes principles of causality and uniformity without which we can’t know the past.

3. However, Laplace wrongly assumes that:a. All events need a natural cause. b. Analogy calling for an intelligent cause does not apply to past events of origin.c. There is an unbroken regress of natural

causes (This begs the question in favor of naturalism)

Failure to distinguish origin and

operation science

Failure to distinguish origin and

operation science Origin Science Operation ScienceAbout origin of things About operation of things

How things came about How things function

Past singularities Present regularities

Forensic science Empirical science

Primary or secondary causes Only secondary causes

Based on: Based on:

causality observation

analogy repetition

Hume’s Argument for Naturalism (1748) used by Laplace (1785f):

Hume’s Argument for Naturalism (1748) used by Laplace (1785f):

1. Natural laws describe regular occurrences.

2. A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence.

3. The evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare.

4. Wise persons base their belief on the greater evidence.

5. Hence, wise persons should not believe in miracles.






The Common Denominator: Hume’s Argument has a false premise.

The Common Denominator: Hume’s Argument has a false premise.











A Response to Hume's Argument:

Evidence for rare events can be greater:

A Response to Hume's Argument:

Evidence for rare events can be greater: Rare Events Accepted by Naturalists:

A. Big Bang origin of the universe.

B. Spontaneous generation of first life.

C. Macroevolution (from microbe to man)

Rare Events Accepted by Naturalists:

A. Big Bang origin of the universe.

B. Spontaneous generation of first life.

C. Macroevolution (from microbe to man)

A. The Fall of NaturalismA. The Fall of Naturalism

• 1. The Cause beyond the universe must be supernatural, since it caused the entire natural world from nothing (thus refuting Laplace's naturalistic continuity principle).

• 2. The evidence for a singularity can be greater than for a regularity (thus refuting Hume's anti-supernaturalism).

• 3. The principles of regularity and uniformity reveal that only an a super-intelligent Being could have put together the laws of the universe and first life.

• 1. The Cause beyond the universe must be supernatural, since it caused the entire natural world from nothing (thus refuting Laplace's naturalistic continuity principle).

• 2. The evidence for a singularity can be greater than for a regularity (thus refuting Hume's anti-supernaturalism).

• 3. The principles of regularity and uniformity reveal that only an a super-intelligent Being could have put together the laws of the universe and first life.

B. The Return to Theism


Stephen Hawking: He described how the value of many fundamental numbers in nature's laws "seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" and how God appears to have "very carefully chosen the initial configuration of the universe" (cited by Heeren, Shew Me God, 67).

The Blind Watch-Maker Objection1. Life is not irreducibly complex (It has parts).2. Organisms like the eye had other functions3. Not all order calls for a designer (cf. Hurricanes)

Response:1. This violates scientific principle of regularity.2. Nature can tear apart but not put together.3. Sight is not possible until all parts are there.

The Blind Watch-Maker Objection1. Life is not irreducibly complex (It has parts).2. Organisms like the eye had other functions3. Not all order calls for a designer (cf. Hurricanes)

Response:1. This violates scientific principle of regularity.2. Nature can tear apart but not put together.3. Sight is not possible until all parts are there.

. Life is not irreducible complex. It has simple parts just like sentences do (e.g., words).

Imperfect Design Objection: World is not a perfect design. Hence, it did not have a perfect Designer.

Response:1. The design does not have to be perfect to need a

Designer.2. Perfect Designer can make less than perfect designs

(He may have more ability than he uses).3. Imperfections may not have been in the original

design (but in subsequent tampering with it).

Imperfect Design Objection: World is not a perfect design. Hence, it did not have a perfect Designer.

Response:1. The design does not have to be perfect to need a

Designer.2. Perfect Designer can make less than perfect designs

(He may have more ability than he uses).3. Imperfections may not have been in the original

design (but in subsequent tampering with it).

Objection of Endless Designer: Every designer needs a designer. There is no first Designer.

Response: 1. Every cause does not need a cause; only every effect does.

2. Every designer does not need a cause; only every design does.

3. Everything does not need a cause; only everything that begins does.

Objection based on chance: Chance combinations over long periods of time can account for complexity.

Response:1.Chance does not cause anything; only

forces do.2.Principle of regularity shows natural

forces do not produce life’s complexity.

3. Time randomizes, not specifies (cf. II Law of thermodynamics).

Objection based on chance: Chance combinations over long periods of time can account for complexity.

Response:1.Chance does not cause anything; only

forces do.2.Principle of regularity shows natural

forces do not produce life’s complexity.

3. Time randomizes, not specifies (cf. II Law of thermodynamics).

The Return to TheismThe Return to Theism

Behe: "The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell--to investigate life at the molecular level--is a loud, clear, piercing cry of 'design!' The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein" (DBB, 232-33, emphasis added).

Behe: "The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell--to investigate life at the molecular level--is a loud, clear, piercing cry of 'design!' The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein" (DBB, 232-33, emphasis added).

Either Creation or Spontaneous Generation Either Creation or Spontaneous Generation “Either life was created on the earth by the will of

a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in non-living matter lying on the surface of our planet” (Jastrow, Until the Sun Dies, 62).

Noble Prize-winning biologist George Wald added, “there is no third position” (Wald, “The Origin of Life,” in Life: Origin and Evolution, 1979, ed. T. E. Fulsom).

“Either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in non-living matter lying on the surface of our planet” (Jastrow, Until the Sun Dies, 62).

Noble Prize-winning biologist George Wald added, “there is no third position” (Wald, “The Origin of Life,” in Life: Origin and Evolution, 1979, ed. T. E. Fulsom).

Does Life Have a Natural Does Life Have a Natural Cause?Cause?

Miller-Urey Experiment 1953Miller-Urey Experiment 1953

Many Intelligent Many Intelligent ChoicesChoices1. The apparatus1. The apparatus

2. The Chemicals2. The Chemicals

3. The Electrode3. The Electrode

4. Eliminating the 4. Eliminating the oxygenoxygen

5. Heating and 5. Heating and cooling cooling

Results:Results: Chemicals; Chemicals; No life!No life!

Spontaneous Generation of Spontaneous Generation of First Life is not ScientificFirst Life is not Scientific

1. It is contrary to empirical science (Redi 1. It is contrary to empirical science (Redi and Pasteur disproved it).and Pasteur disproved it).

2. The Chemicals they used didn’t exist in 2. The Chemicals they used didn’t exist in early earth in those concentrations.early earth in those concentrations.

3. Oxygen excluded existed in early earth. 3. Oxygen excluded existed in early earth.

4. It had illegitimate investigator 4. It had illegitimate investigator interference.interference.

5. They ignored destructive forces.5. They ignored destructive forces.

6. The results were not a living organism. 6. The results were not a living organism.

No Spontaneous Generation No Spontaneous Generation

• Brooks and Shaw: “In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth” (Origins and Development of Living Systems, 396).

• William Day: “A curious flaw of human nature is to permit the imagery of a catchy phrase to shape one’s reasoning. Haldane’s hot dilute soup became “primordial soup,” a feature that has been popularized for nearly fifty years without geological evidence that it ever existed” (Genesis on Planet Earth, 231-232).

• Brooks and Shaw: “In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth” (Origins and Development of Living Systems, 396).

• William Day: “A curious flaw of human nature is to permit the imagery of a catchy phrase to shape one’s reasoning. Haldane’s hot dilute soup became “primordial soup,” a feature that has been popularized for nearly fifty years without geological evidence that it ever existed” (Genesis on Planet Earth, 231-232).

The Eye Made Darwin ShudderThe Eye Made Darwin ShudderThe Eye Made Darwin ShudderThe Eye Made Darwin Shudder

Spinoza in brief:Spinoza in brief:1. Miracles are violations of

natural laws.

2. Natural laws are immutable.

3. It is impossible to violate immutable laws.

4. Therefore, miracles are impossible.

1. Miracles are violations of natural laws.

2. Natural laws are immutable.

3. It is impossible to violate immutable laws.

4. Therefore, miracles are impossible.

Response to Spinoza: Response to Spinoza: 1. It begs the question to assume that natural laws are immutable.

2.It is based on an outdated "closed" view of the universe (exceptions are possible in an "open" universe).

3.Natural laws don’t prescribe what can occur; but only describe what does occur.

4. Natural laws describe only regular events, not necessarily every event (e.g., anomalies).

1. It begs the question to assume that natural laws are immutable.

2.It is based on an outdated "closed" view of the universe (exceptions are possible in an "open" universe).

3.Natural laws don’t prescribe what can occur; but only describe what does occur.

4. Natural laws describe only regular events, not necessarily every event (e.g., anomalies).

Laplace: No Creation or Miracles

Laplace: No Creation or Miracles

"The calculus of probabilities ... appreciates the greatest improbability of testimonies in regard to extraordinary facts." And "there are things so extraordinary that nothing can balance their improbability." Such are the claims for miracles. Hence, "One may judge by this the immense weight of testimonies necessary to admit a suspension of natural laws, and how improper it would be to apply to this case the ordinary rules of criticism” (Laplace, Probabilities 114, 118, 119).

"The calculus of probabilities ... appreciates the greatest improbability of testimonies in regard to extraordinary facts." And "there are things so extraordinary that nothing can balance their improbability." Such are the claims for miracles. Hence, "One may judge by this the immense weight of testimonies necessary to admit a suspension of natural laws, and how improper it would be to apply to this case the ordinary rules of criticism” (Laplace, Probabilities 114, 118, 119).

Reason for This ConclusionPrinciple of Continuity would rule out

creation—There was no beginningPrinciple of Analogy would rule out

miracles—No supernatural causes in the present.

Thus, all causes in nature would be natural causes = no Creator!

Principle of Continuity would rule out creation—There was no beginning

Principle of Analogy would rule out miracles—No supernatural causes in the present.

Thus, all causes in nature would be natural causes = no Creator!

However, if the universe has a beginning, then this naturalistic conclusion would not follow because:

1. There would be a first Cause beyond the natural world.

2. This Cause would have to be super-natural.

However, if the universe has a beginning, then this naturalistic conclusion would not follow because:

1. There would be a first Cause beyond the natural world.

2. This Cause would have to be super-natural.



Behe: "The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell--to investigate life at the molecular level--is a loud, clear, piercing cry of 'design!' The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein" (Darwin’s Black Box, 232-33, emphasis added).

Behe: "The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell--to investigate life at the molecular level--is a loud, clear, piercing cry of 'design!' The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein" (Darwin’s Black Box, 232-33, emphasis added).

"Science & God: Friends or Foes?" - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)

Education

piercing cry

thesecumulative

wise persons

regular isalways

naturalnatural

analogy shows

principle

responsible