Re: Will Biology, Astronomy, Physics rule out the Existence of Deity


On September 18th, 2012, Huffington Post writer Natalie Wolchover published an article entitled Will Biology, Astronomy, Physics Rule Out The Existence Of Deity?

The article begins with this statement:

“Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious — thebexistence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.

"Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.”

On April 12th, 1961, Russia launched the first man to ever go into outer space. This Cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, is famously rumored to have stated as he orbited the earth, “I see no God up here.”

As Natalie Wolchover has correctly pointed out in her article, the deeper and more intimate human understanding of the universe becomes, the less people have to fall back on ancient notions that there is a physical Atlas holding the world on his back or that the sun is god’s chariot riding across the sky. Just so, when man first entered space and found that there was no God standing their brooding over the earth, he smugly concluded that there was no God at all.

The argument appears to be that, because scientists are able to recognize that there are rules andbsystems within the universe that support one another so that the universe functions with incredible complexity and unfathomable precision, that galaxies cluster into super-galaxies, while stars orbit a central point of gravity within galaxies all held together by weak and strong atomic forces, that planets orbit the sun, the large super-giants on the outside with their strong gravitation pulling in stray matter that would otherwise bombard the inner planets, while light leaves the sun in intense radiation which diffuses enough so that when it bombards the earth, the atmosphere with its ozone and cloud cover filter out the harmful radiation while accepting the helpful radiation, that plants are then able to accept this radiation on the cellular level and transform it into stored energy, that animals are able to metabolize these greens for their energy, that these animals and plants form an incredibly complex and balanced ecosystem that adjust and stabilizes itself to change, and that humans continue through the sciences and philosophy to grasp and understand this order, that this proves that these systems do not require any sort of originator or designer.

The assumption is apparently that if humans can understand the universe, then it follows that God did not create it. If they can pull back the curtain and find a fully functioning machine without a God in a hamster wheel keeping the whole thing running, that there must not be a God.

Science, which is the practice of forming theses based on observation, and then performing experimentation to support or obviate these theses, can tell people how the universe works, but it cannot tell the world why the universe works.

Whatever one might think about the Bible, it is outstanding from other religious books written within the same time period in a particular respect: it paints a picture of a God who is not part of his creation, but rather transcendent from his creation. Rather than positing God’s mood for the explanation of why there are seasons, or saying that the sun is his eye and the wind is his breath, God is self-contained and separate from the world he is said to have created.

Christianity does not fall back on God as the mechanism that drives things within the universe, it simply believes that God is responsible for designing those mechanisms.

In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins goes to great lengths to explain that what appears to be design within the universe is actually undesigned. But to do so, he has to at least grant the premise that the universe appears to have design.

When all is said and done, however, there is no reason that the processes of trial and error, of vast amounts of failure leading to occasional success, that Dawkins explains cannot, themselves, be designed.

They may have implications on the nature of this God, but they do not eliminate the possibility.

This is not an argument for the existence of God. Rather, it is an answer to the question “Will Biology, Astronomy, and Physics rule out the existence of Deity?” No. Because explaining how something works does not explain why it is there to begin with.