In my previous post I laid out the case against a particular scientific approach to the question of the origin of life and/or species that is usually identified as naturalism. The proponent of the that approach quickly embraced Darwinian evolution of random and undirected mutation and natural selection because it provided an opening to reject supernatural cause. As more and more evidences are discovered, the case for that approach is getting weaker. Still, the proponent of naturalism continue to hold on to that view to the point of, dare I say it?, faith.
Scientific knowledge is a shifting body of knowledge. What is so special about the naturalism approach that makes it immune to being abandoned, revised, or replaced? Is it because, as Philip E. Johnson suspected, that it is a religious view?
I had a challenge from a reader to my post mentioned above, the person seemed to put a great deal of faith on science. I am paraphrasing what he said, "Just wait, science will eventually find the answer to all the question about the origin of life!" That same person also challenged me to prove God using science.
How should I respond? Here are three points that I heard from a Christian chemist recently:
1. I can not say that it is impossible for science to be able to disprove or prove God's existence because I do not, and will never, have exhaustive knowledge of science. Neither can anyone, for that matter. An infinitesimally small possibility is still a possibility.
2. Has it been demonstrated that science can prove or disprove God's existence and His activities? So far, neither has been demonstrated. According to the majority of scientist today, the universe has a beginning, specifically a beginning that had the shape of a ball no bigger than a baseball. This ball contains the mass of the entire universe, I know it is mind boggling. Way back then, something, or someone, caused it to explode with such a force about 13 billion years ago. That power was so great that the universe is still expanding today. This thing is the singularity. Beyond that, all law of physics breaks down. None of us are there when it happened and I doubt it can ever be recreated. The world largest particle collider at the time this is written, is located in Europe and called Large Hadron Collider (LHC). (See my posting about it here).
Nevertheless, I think that the quest for discovery is one of the highest calling and pleasure for the human kind granted by the Creator.
See, like those who already accepted the view that the universe only have natural causes, I accepted the view that all these were created by and omnipotent, omniscient and loving God. This takes us to the third point ...
3. What is the probability that science can disprove or prove God? What is the probability that the universe came into being because of chance and natural causes only? What is the probability that the universe was created by God? I reject the notion that the decision to embrace the view that God created the whole universe and all its inhabitants is, somehow, not a scientific one. The probability of the universe coming into existence solely by natural and undirected random processes is much smaller compared to the probability that an omnipotent, omniscient, and loving God created everything.
Is science the only kind of knowledge?
The answer is no, see here for an article listing other kinds of knowledge know to human: historical knowledge, philosophical knowledge, moral knowledge, and personal knowledge. Not all of them are repeatable, for example: Can you prove that King Henry VIII existed? Using non-scientific methods, it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he existed.
~o0o~
Update 2009-Dec-13: Today, I was introduced to another kind of knowledge, "tacit knowledge" of Michael Polanyi.
No comments:
Post a Comment