Should God be
divorced from science?
Or is God the
author of science?
by Ariel A.
Roth
During a meeting of the Geological Society of America, I heard a
number of scientists express concern about the impact of
creationism. At one of the larger sessions a speaker warned that
those attending "should not let science fall to the fraud of
creationists." Another characterized biblical catastrophism -
which makes the Genesis Flood an important part of earth history -
as "dishonest" and "nasty." And someone else called creation
science an "erroneous pseudoscience."(1)
What had stimulated these reactions was a recent Gallup Poll of
adults in the United States. This poll indicated that most people
don't believe what science proclaims about human origins. Only 9
percent believe the scientific model that human beings evolved
over millions of years without the involvement of any God.
Conversely, 44 percent believe that God created human beings
within the past ten thousand years, and 38 percent believe that
God guided in the development of man over millions of years. These
results are essentially the same as those of five previous polls
asking the same questions(2). Most people find it difficult to
believe that we're here by accident and that life has no meaning
or purpose.
Many scientists believe
Just what do scientists believe about God? Two studies published
in the prestigious journal Nature appear to be reliable(3). One
thousand scientists, randomly selected from the long listing in
American Men and Women of Science,
were queried about their belief in God. The questionnaire defined
God very narrowly; to be considered believers in God the
respondents had to agree to the statement: "I believe in a God in
intellectual and affective communication with humankind; i.e., a
God to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer. By
'answer' I mean more than the subjective psychological effect of
prayer."
About 40 percent of those surveyed said they believed in the kind
of God described above; 45 percent did not, and 15 percent said
they didn't know.
Interestingly, this 1996 survey was a repeat of an identical one
taken 80 years earlier with just about the same results.
Can a scientist believe that God created the world in six days, as
described in the Bible? Yes. A recent publication entitled In Six
Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (4),
compiles the comments of 50 scientists, all with degrees at the
doctoral level, as to why they believe the biblical account of
Creation. So, many more scientists believe in God than one would
suspect from what one reads in science textbooks, articles, and
the public media.
"One cannot
be exposed to the order and beauty of the universe without conceding
there must be a divine intent behind it. . . .The more we understand
the universe and the intricacies of its operation, the more sense we
have to marvel at its Creator."
Wernher von Braun (1912 - 1977), rocket
scientist, directed NASA's Marshall Space Center (1960 - 1970) and
was chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the
super-booster
that propelled Americans to the moon.
And there is an abundance of data that support their beliefs, that
suggest there is a God who designed the natural world we see about
us. It all seems way too precise and way too complicated to have
arisen on its own. Recent discoveries make the case even more
compelling. Examples include: (1) The precise value of many
physical constants necessary for the existence of our universe(5).
(2) The very complicated nature of even the simplest microbe(6).
(3) The interdependence of the numerous complexities found in
advanced organisms such as the elaborate relationship of the eye
to the brain (7). Science that excludes the concept of a designer
God stands mute when trying to explain adequately the origin of
these marvelous things.
Science's founders
Chemistry students very soon learn about Boyle's Law, which
delineates the inverse relationship between the volume and
pressure of a gas. That law and other important principles were
discovered centuries ago by Robert Boyle, who has often been
called the "father of chemistry." This pioneer of modern science
wrote extensively about both science and the Bible. He saw an
"absolute harmony" between the two(8). He believed that God is the
Creator and Sustainer of the world.
Boyle is typical of the pioneers of science who, by emphasizing
observation and experimentation, helped extricate this discipline
from the confusion of the Middle Ages. Kepler, Galileo, Newton,
Pascal, and Linnaeus are well-known examples. Few denied God's
existence. Most were deeply committed religious thinkers who
believed the Bible and saw no conflict whatsoever between their
religion and their scientific discoveries. They felt they were
discovering the principles and laws that God had created.
In fact, an impressive number of leading scholars support the
concept that modern science developed in the Western world because
of its Judeo-Christian background. (9) In other words, instead of
science and the Bible being worlds apart, science owes its very
origin to the philosophy of the Bible.
The argument is that the Bible speaks of a God who is consistent
and reasonable and who created the cause-and-effect relationships
that scientists observe in nature. Although both India and China
existed long enough to allow for the development of scientific
thought and understanding, science did not develop in those
countries because they believed in gods who were capricious and
unpredictable. Consequently, their worldview precluded them from
discovering the law and order that lies at the foundation of
modern science.
While it is difficult to unequivocally affirm this broadly
accepted concept, the very fact that it exists suggests a close
relationship between the God of the Bible and science.
Some exclude God
Many scientists want to deal only with what they can observe in
nature. This is understandable since the study of nature is their
specialty. In doing this, however, they often exclude God even
though there is compelling evidence for God in the precision and
complexities science has discovered.
Some scientists even define science as excluding God. In so doing,
they compromise science's claim to find truth. Science cannot find
God as long as it pretends there is no God. It would seem
preferable for science to return to the broader view of the
pioneers of modern science - the view that included God. Science
made its greatest philosophical error when it rejected God and
tried to explain everything within a limited, naturalistic
(mechanistic) perspective.
Can a Bible-believing person be a scientist? Some scientists
suggest that religious people cannot interpret nature correctly
because of their bias. Let's recognize that it is possible to
evaluate truth in nature in spite of our biases. One can
legitimately ask, though, if scientists who reject belief in God
could find the truth about Him if He truly does exist.
Finally, if you say that a religious person cannot be a scientist,
you are going to have to eliminate the 40 percent of scientists
who believe God answers their prayers, as well as most of the
pioneers of modern science. Isaac Newton, who very much believed
the Bible and whom many consider to be the greatest scientist of
all time, would not qualify as a scientist! A Bible believer can
be a scientist searching for explanations about nature.
So, let the data of nature speak openly for itself - including the
evidence that there is a God. In my opinion, this would be a more
truly scientific approach.
_________________
Used by permission of the author. Ariel A. Roth, Ph.D., now
retired, was for years director of the Geoscience Research
Institute, Loma Linda, California.
(1) For more details
see Ariel A. Roth, "Where Has the Science Gone?"
Origins 10 (1983): 48,49.
(2) http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr01305.asp>.
(3) E.J. Larson, L.
Witham, "Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith,"
Nature 386 (1977): 435,436.
(4) J. F. Ashton, ed. In Six
Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to
Believe in Creation (Sydney,
London: New Holland Publishers
[Australia] Pty.
Ltd., 1999).
(5) For a good review see D. L.
Overman, A Case Against Accident
and Self-Organization
(Lanham, Md.; Boulder, Colo.: Rowman &
Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.,1997), 103-175.
(6) See Ariel A. Roth, Origins:
Linking Science and Scripture
(Hagerstown, Md.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 1998),
63-79.
(7) See ibid.,
94-129.
(8) D. L. Woodall,
"The Relationship Between Science and Scripture in
the Thought of Robert
Boyle," Perspectives on Science and Christian
Faith 49 (1997): 32-39.
(9) These include A.
N. Whitehead, R. G. Collingwood, R. Hookas,
S. L. Jacki, etc. For 12
references see Roth, , Origins: Linking Science
and Scripture, p. 58, note
4.
|