Origins 1(2):52-55 (1974). — editorial
Many scientists sincerely feel that there is a serious conflict
between scientific methodology involving ideas of natural cause and effect, repeatability
and predictability, and the concept of a God who can overrule in nature and thus negate
these ideas. This conflict is considered so serious that at times the statement is made
that a scientist cannot pursue serious study in his discipline while believing in a God
who can interfere with the course of nature. It is felt that the consistency and
predictability of science disappear in the presence of an unpredictable God. This, no
doubt, is part of the reason why some scientists reject the concept of God, while others
define Him as an impersonal organizing force or entity. We would like to propose that this
apparent conflict has a reasonable solution.
Let us suppose, as we believe, that God established the laws of nature
by which science analyzes and operates. Does this necessitate a conflict between God and
science? It would seem not. The conflict seems a little more probable when one considers
miracles, such as those described in the Bible, where it appears that God interferes with
the normal course of nature. These do not exclude scientific analysis as long as some of
the laws we understand are still operating. To state it differently: even when something
we do not fully comprehend takes place, the event should be amenable to some scientific
analysis, as long as one of the laws of nature is still in operation and provided the
tools of science are sufficiently adequate.
In addition to this, some philosophers, including Alfred North
Whitehead (1950, pp. 8-19), have pointed out that science developed in the Western world
in part because of the Judeo-Christian concept of a rational and reasonable God. Science
did not develop, or developed very poorly, in other civilizations, because the concepts of
capricious gods precluded the development of science. The very stable civilizations, such
as those of India and China, certainly provided the environment for intellectual pursuits;
nevertheless science advanced in the Western world, probably because of the idea of a
rational God in conjunction with the disciplined concepts of the Judeo-Christian
tradition. Emphasizing this, Whitehead (1950, p. 19) states: "My explanation is that
the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of
modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology." Thus
one can conclude that there is a conflict between science and a capricious God, but there
is good agreement between science and a God who is the author of the laws of science. The
two kinds of gods must not be confused.
Another accusation leveled by some scientists against those believing
in a God who is active in the affairs of nature is that whenever one runs into an unsolved
problem, he only has to invoke the power of God to answer the problem. However, that a God
can act at a level beyond man's understanding does not seem to be a sound reason to reject
Him. Also, the same type of criticism can be leveled at a non-theistic scientific approach
which relies on time to answer improbable events. This is implied in the statement by the
noted physiologist George Wald (1954): "Given so much time, the 'impossible' becomes
possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait:
time itself performs the miracles."
A problem has developed in modern evolutionary theory due to reliance
on time for improbable events. Given enough time, anything could happen; hence no matter
what has been interpreted as the past history for life, it could have occurred. And since
anything could have occurred, there is no way to show that it did not. In particular,
evolution has models for advancing, for regressing, for jumping gaps, for annihilation,
etc. For all types of data there is a model to explain it. The problem has been well
stated by two evolutionary biologists, Birch and Ehrlich (1967): "Our theory of
evolution has become . . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible
observations. Any conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of
empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test
it."
Reliance on time for improbable events has also run into some
difficulty when quantitatively evaluated. For instance, Eden (1967), in the book Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, has calculated that in 5
billion years (an assumed age of the Earth) one would expect to get only 2 genes in the
right order in the common bacterium Escherichia coli if the organism were spread
over the surface of the earth in a layer 2 centimeters thick. This does not include time
for evolving the genes, a much more complex process, or for putting other genes in order;
and one also wonders where there would be enough space for several hundred thousand other
organisms which would also be evolving. This study and a number of others (Hull 1960; Eden
1967; Schützenberger 1967; Salisbury 1969 and 1971, etc.) strongly indicate that the
amount of time that the geological time scale allows is totally inadequate for the
improbable events required by modern evolutionary theory.
It would seem that the concept of arriving at truth through science in
combination with a rational God is most reasonable. This is preferable to relegating all
questions to a capricious and unpredictable God, since there appears to be a conflict
between that type of a God and the degree of orderliness one sees in nature. This also
seems preferable to trying to answer all questions through a scientific process which
excludes God. Not only does this appear arbitrary, but as pointed out above, the godless
system is quite inadequate to explain many questions, especially those of origins. One
could argue that since God can be used to answer all questions, to employ Him weakens
one's objectivity. But objectivity points to a God and the argument loses further
significance in view of the type of God described in the Bible, a reasonable and rational
God who is usually predictable, yet who is powerful enough to answer the problems which
science by itself cannot answer. This appears to be the best approach to truth.
REFERENCES
All contents copyright
Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.
| Home
| About Us
| Contact Us
|
Send comments and questions to
webmaster@grisda.org
| What's New
| Resources
| Search
| Links
|