"Science & God: Friends or Foes?" - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

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

on

  • 1,187 views

Does modern scientific understanding and the discoveries of the 20th century oppose belief in the existence in the idea of "God"?

Does modern scientific understanding and the discoveries of the 20th century oppose belief in the existence in the idea of "God"?

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,187
Views on SlideShare
863
Embed Views
324

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0

6 Embeds 324

http://www.intelligentfaith315.com 220
http://intelligentfaith315.com 86
http://6198345805397954231_3b039ed5518ace9196928d800c807c0ec8dce045.blogspot.com 10
http://intelligent-faith-92vs.squarespace.com 4
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 2
http://turreting17.nazata.com 2

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • O

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

  • Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2008Belief that God Exists:Does Science Support It?
  • I. Science Began With GodII. Science Departed from GodIII. Science Returns to God
  • Most Founders of ModernScience Believed in GodJohannes Kepler (1571 1630) Celestial‑Mechanics,Physical AstronomyBlaise Pascal (1623 1662)‑HydrostaticsRobert Boyle (1627 1691)‑Chemistry, GasDynamicsNicolaus Steno (1638 1687)‑StratigraphyIsaac Newton (1642 1727)‑Calculus, Dynamics View slide
  • 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)‑ View slide
  • “It is not tobe conceived that meremechanical causes couldgive birth to so many regularmotions, since the cometsrange over all parts of the heavensin very eccentric orbits.... Thismost beautiful system of the sun,planets, and comets, could onlyproceed from the counsel anddominion of an intelligent andSir Isaac Newton (1642 1727)‑
  • "May God make itcome to pass that mydelightful speculation [inMysterium Cosmographicum] haveeverywhere among reasonable menfully the effect which I stroveto obtain in the publication;namely, that the belief in thecreation of the world befortified through this externalsupport...." (cited by Holton,Origins, 84)Johannes Kepler (1571 1630)‑
  • The Father of ModernScience:Francis Bacon (1620)"Only let the humanrace recover thatright over naturewhich belongs to itby divine bequest [inGen. 1:28], and letpower be given it;the exercise thereofwill be governed bysound reason and truereligion" (NovumOrganum, 1:129:119).
  • Alfred N.Whitehead:"The faith in thepossibility ofscience, generatedantecedently to thedevelopment ofmodern scientifictheory, is anunconsciousderivative from
  • Foster:"What is the source of theun-Greek elementswhich...constitute themodernity of modernphilosophy? And...what is thesource of those un-Greekelements in the modern theoryof nature...? The answer tothe first question is: TheChristian revelation, and theanswer to the second: The
  • Professor LangdonGilkey:“The religiousidea of atranscendent Creatoractually made possiblerather than hindered theprogress of thescientificunderstanding of thenatural order. The moderninvestigators of nature were thefirst to take seriously in theirscience the Christian doctrine
  • Summary: Science Began with God1. 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 God
  • A. By Limiting Science toSecondary Causes(Francis Bacon 1620)True knowledge is "knowledgeby causes.""The efficient and the material(...as remote [primary] causes...)are but slight and superficial,and contribute little, ifanything, to true and activescience.”Nature operates by "fixed laws"(Novum Organum 2.3.121).
  • B. By Separating Science fromPrimary Causes (Galileo(1564 1642).‑He affirmed that "It is the intention ofthe Holy Spirit [in Scripture] to teachus how one goes to heaven, and not howthe heavens go" (Dutchess..., 11).The supernatural is the sourceof the natural world, but the naturalworld is the proper domain of science(ibid., 17).Note: Both Bacon and Galileorecognized the difference between aprimary Cause (God) of the world’s
  • C. By a “God-of-the-Gaps”Error (SirIsaac Newton (1642-1727).But Newton invokeddivine intervention to explainthe irregular orbit of someplanets. This opened him up toa “God-of-the-gaps” chargethat God was invoked toexplain the operation of theworld simply because one couldnot find a natural cause.
  • Pierre Simon Laplace(1749 1827)‑He rejected a “God-of-the-Gaps”"I must here remark how Newtonhas erred on this point, from themethod which he has otherwise sohappily applied" (System 2:4:331).“Such an error arises when"the imagination, impatient toarrive at the causes, takespleasure in creating hypotheses,and often it changes the facts inorder to adapt them to its work“
  • D. By LimitingGod toCausing Only theMaterial World(Kant 1724-1804)"I find matterbound to certain necessarylaws. Out of its universaldissolution and dissipation I seea beautiful and orderly wholequite naturally developingitself. This does not take placeby accident, or of chance [but byGod]; but it is perceived that
  • "We can here say withintelligent certainty and withoutaudacity: Give me matter, and Iwill construct a world out ofit!‘” But "...are we in a positionto say: `Give me matter and Iwill show you how a caterpillarcan be produced?" His answer wasa bold Yes! But, he believed that"...the origin of the wholepresent constitution of theuniverse, will become intelligiblebefore the production of a singleherb or a caterpillar bymechanical causes, will become
  • E. By Viewing Natural Lawsas Immutable (Laplace1749-1827)For "All events, eventhose which on account oftheir insignificance donot seem to follow the greatlaws of nature, are a result of itjust as necessarily as therevolutions of the sun." Itis only "In ignorance of the ties whichunite such events to the entire systemof the universe, they have been made todepend upon final causes or upon hazard[chance] For "all the effects of natureare only mathematical results of a smallnumber of immutable laws" (Laplace,
  • Blind Force Can Explain AllLaplace also rejected Newtonsidea that a blind force "couldnever make all the planets movethus, with some irregularitieshardly perceivable...." He asked,"...could not this arrangement ofthe planets be itself an effect ofthe laws of motion; and could notthe supreme intelligence whichNewton makes to interfere, make itto depend on a more generalphenomenon? such as, according tous, a nebulous matter distributed
  • BenedictSpinoza (1632-1677) NaturalLaws are Immutable"Nothing then, comes to passin nature in contraventionto her universal laws,for...she keeps a fixed andimmutable order." Hence, "amiracle, whether in
  • Laplace and NapoleanWhen Napolean enquiredabout the absence of God inLaplace’s scientific views,Laplace is said to havereplied: “Sir, I have no needfor that hypothesis.”
  • Principles Operating in Modern Science1. Principle of Causality: All events have a cause.2. Principle of Uniformity (Analogy): Past eventshave similar causes to present ones.3. Principle of Continuity: There is an unbrokenchain of causal events extending into theremote past.4. If a Primary Cause [God] exists, He isresponsible for the origin of the world, butsecondary causes (natural forces) areresponsible for the operation of the naturalworld after that.
  • 1. The Principle ofCausalityFrancis Bacon: True knowledge is"knowledge by causes” (NovumOrganum, Book 2, no. II).
  • 1. The Principle ofCausalityFrancis Bacon: True knowledge is"knowledge by causes” (NovumOrganum, Book 2, no. II).Laplace: He speaks of “…theevident principle that a thingcannot occur without a causewhich produces it"(Probabilities, 4).
  • 1. The Principle ofCausalityFrancis Bacon: True knowledge is"knowledge by causes” (NovumOrganum, Book 2, no. II).Laplace: He speaks of “…theevident principle that a thingcannot occur without a causewhich produces it"(Probabilities, 4).Hume: “I never asserted so absurd aproposition as that a thing could arise without
  • 2. The Principle Analogy(Uniformity)“The present is the key to the past.”“Analogy is based upon theprobability that similarthings have causes of the samekind and produce the sameeffects." And "thisprobability increases as thesimilitude becomes moreperfect" (Laplace,Probabilities, 180).Thus, scientific views
  • 3. The Principle ofContinuityLaplace believed "we oughtthen to regard the presentstate of the universe as theeffect of its anterior stateand as the cause of the onewhich is to follow." Thus,"present events are connectedwith preceding ones by a tiebased upon the evidentprinciple that a thing cannotoccur without a cause which
  • 4. Primary Cause is responsible forthe origin of the natural world, butsecondary (natural) causes areresponsible for its operation.
  • 4. Primary Cause is responsible forthe origin of the natural world, butsecondary (natural) causes areresponsible for its operation.Conclusions:1. If the universe is eternal, then there is noneeds for a primary Cause to get itstarted (as the principle of continuityshows).
  • 4. Primary Cause is responsible forthe origin of the natural world, butsecondary (natural) causes areresponsible for its operation.Conclusions:1. If the universe is eternal, then there is noneeds for a primary Cause to get itstarted (as the principle of continuityshows).2. But if the universe is not eternal, then itneeds a primary Cause to get it started(as the principle of causality states).
  • 3. Supernatural Cause (God) should notbe used to explain the regular operationof the world (for that is a “God-of-gaps”fallacy).4. If life is eternal, then there is not needfor a primary cause to get it started.5. If life is not eternal, then it needs acause to get it started (as the principle ofcausality demands).6. A primary cause(s) in the past must belike one(s) in the present (as theprinciple of analogy dictates).
  • Reopening the Door toGod:With a Big Bang!
  • Voiding the Principle ofContinuity"There is a kind ofreligion inscience. It is the religion of a personwho believes there is orderand harmony in theuniverse.... Everyeffect must have its cause: There isno first cause.... This religiousfaith of thescientists is violated by the discoverythat the world had a beginning underconditions in which the known laws ofphysics are not valid, and as a product
  • I. Science Began With GodII. Science Departed from GodIII. Science Returns to God
  • III. Science Returns to GodA. Philosophical ResponseB. Scientific Response
  • A. Philosophical Response1. The principle of continuity only appliesif the universe had no beginning.2. The principle of analogy shows that somecauses are intelligent causes.3. Not all things that operate by naturallaws have a natural cause for theirorigin.
  • 1. The Philosophical Argument fora Beginning of the UniverseThe Kalam Argument:1. An infinite series of moments has no end.2. But the series of all moments before thepresent ends with the present moment.3. Therefore, there were not an infinite numberof moments before the present moment.Hence, time (the temporal world) had abeginning.
  • God from a Skeptics PremisesDavid Hume said:1. Every event has a cause: “I never asserted soabsurd a proposition as that a thing couldarise without a cause” (Hume, Letters, 1.187).2. Time had a beginning: Because “An infinitenumber of real parts of time, passing insuccession, and exhausted one after another,appears so evident a contradiction, that noman, one should think, whose judgment is notcorrupted…would ever be able to admit of it”(Hume, An Enquiry Concerning HumanUnderstanding, Sect. XII, Part II).3. Therefore, time (the temporal world) had aCause.
  • A. Philosophical Response1. The principle of continuity only appliesif the universe had no beginning.2. The principle of analogy shows that somecauses are intelligent causes.
  • 2. The principle of analogy shows thatsome causes are intelligent causes.If the present is the key to the past, thenthe kind of cause that produces a certainkind of event in the present (which we knowby observation and repetition) calls for asimilar cause in the past for that kind ofevent.
  • Two Types of CausesNatural IntelligentThis is known by observationand repetition in the present
  • NaturalNatural IntelligentIntelligentTWO TYPES OF CAUSESTWO TYPES OF CAUSESSand Dune Sand Castle
  • Two Types of CausesNatural IntelligentWater Falls Power PlantCrystals ChandelierSand Dunes Sand CastleRound stones ArrowheadsClouds SkywritingThis is known by observationand repetition in the present
  • Sciences 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 principlesThe Fallacy of Naturalism: Assuming all causesare natural causes. 1) This begs the question,and, 2) It is not scientific since it is contrary toobservation and repetition in the present.
  • A. Philosophical Response1. The principle of continuity does notapply since the universe had abeginning.2. The principle of analogy shows thatsome causes are intelligent causes.3. Not all things that operate by naturallaws have a natural cause.
  • Illustration: 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 neverproduce a motor)
  • What About the Origin OfWhat About the Origin Ofa bacterial rotary motor?a bacterial rotary motor?Analogy calls for an intelligent Cause of it too
  • Response to Modern NaturalismA. Philosophical ResponseB. Scientific Response
  • Response to Modern NaturalismA. Philosophical ResponseB. Scientific Response1. The Origin of the Universe2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe3. The Specified Complexity of Life
  • B. Scientific Response1. The Argument from the Origin ofthe Universe:1. Everything that begins had a cause.2. The physical universe had a beginning.3. Therefore, the physical universe had aCause.
  • Five lines of Evidence that theUniverse had a BeginningSECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICSUNIVERSE IS EXPANDINGRADIATION ECHOGREAT MASS OF MATTEREINSTEIN’S GENERAL RELATIVITY
  • Second Law of Thermodynamics•“Once hydrogen has beenburned within that star andconverted to heavierelements, it can never berestored to its original state.Minute by minute and yearby year, as hydrogen is usedup in stars, the supply of thiselement in the universe growssmaller” (Jastrow, God andthe Astronomers, 15-16).
  • UNUSABLEENERGY
  • Note:If the universe isrunning out of useableenergy, then it musthave had a beginning(since it is notpossible to run out ofan infinite amount of
  • Universe isExpanding"He [Alan Sandage]compiled information on 42galaxies, ranging out in spaceas far as six billion lightyears from us. Hismeasurements indicate that theUniverse was expanding morerapidly in the past than it istoday. This result lendsfurther support to the beliefthat the Universe exploded
  • Radiation Echo"No explanation other than thebig bang has been found for thefireball radiation. Theclincher, which has convincedalmost the last doubting Thomas,is that the radiation discoveredby Penzias and Wilson hasexactly the pattern ofwavelengths expected for thelight and heat produced in agreat explosion. Supporters ofthe Steady State theory have
  • Great Mass of EnergyDiscoveredThe Hubble Space Telescope (1992)found a great mass of matterpredicted by the Big Bang theory."By peering back into thebeginning of time, a satellitefinds the largest and oldeststructure ever observed--evidenceof how the universe took shape 15billion years ago." Onescientist exclaimed, "Its likelooking at God" (Time, May 4, 1993,62, emphasis added).
  • Einstein’s GeneralRelativityHe argued “There is no suchthing as an empty space, i.e., aspace without a field. Space-time does not claim existenceon its own, but only as astructural quality of the field” (in Heeren,Shew Me God, 93).But matter exploded into being.Thus, time must have had a beginning.
  • Einstein’s “FudgeFactor”• Being a pantheist (andnaturalist) like Spinoza,Einstein tried to reject abeginning of the universe byintroducing a "fudge factor" inhis equation.• However, Einstein later admittedhis error and spoke of hisdesire "to know how God createdthe universe." He said, "I amnot interested in this or thatphenomenon, in the spectrum ofthis of that element. I want to
  • Robert Jastrow: Back to theBible“Now we see howtheastronomical evidenceleads to a biblicalview ofthe origin of the world. Thedetails differ,but the essential elements inthe astronomical and biblicalaccounts of genesis are thesame: the chain of events
  • "Astronomers now find thatthey have painted themselvesinto a corner because theyhave proven, by their ownmethods, that the world beganabruptly in an act ofcreation.... And they havefound that all this happenedas a product of forces theycannot hope to discover"Science Leads to the Supernatural
  • Science Ends With aBeginning"The scientists pursuit ofthe past ends in the moment ofcreation. This is anexceedingly strange development,unexpected by all buttheologians. They have alwaysaccepted the word of the Bible:`In the beginning God createdthe heaven and the earth"
  • An Agnostic Astronomer–• "That there arewhat I or anyonewould call super-natural forces atwork is now, I think,a scientificallyproven fact" (Jastrowin Christianity Today[1982], 8).
  • Science Returns to God"For the scientist who has lived byfaith in the power of reason, the storyends like a bad dream. He has scaledthe mountain of ignorance: He isabout to conquer the highest peak; ashe pulls himself over the final rock,he is greeted by a band of theologianswho have been sitting there forcenturies" (Jastrow, GA, 116).
  • B. Scientific Response1. The Argument from the Origin of theUniverse:a. Everything that begins had a cause.b. The physical universe had a beginningc. Therefore, the physical universe had aCause.
  • B. Scientific Response1. The Argument from the Origin of theUniverse:a. Everything that begins had a cause.b. The physical universe had a beginningc. Therefore, the physical universe had aCause.[But the Cause of the whole natural worldcannot be a natural cause. Hence, there is asupernatural Cause of the natural world.]
  • Objection AnsweredObjection: Doesn’t the First Law of thermodynamicsshow the world is eternal when it states that “Energycan neither be created nor destroyed”?Response:1. This is a false statement of the First Law whichshould be stated: “The amount of actual energy in theuniverse remains constant.” The naturalist’smisstatement is based on philosophical speculation, notempirical observation (as operation science is).2. The First Law says nothing about the origin of theuniverse; it leaves that question open.3. The Second Law closes the question by showing thatthe universe had a beginning (because the amountof useable energy is decreasing).
  • Response to Modern NaturalismA. Philosophical ResponseB. Scientific Response1. The Origin of the Universe2. The Fine-Tuning of the UniverseFrom the beginning the universe wasfine-tuned for the emergence of humanlife. Without that advanced pre-tuning,human life would never have emerged.
  • The Anthropic Principle"The anthropic principle is themost interesting development nextto the proof of the creation, and itis even more interesting because itseems to say that science itselfhas proven, as a hard fact, thatthis universe was made, wasdesigned, for man to live in. It is avery theistic result" (Jastrow,Christianity Today [1982], 17).
  • 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 ofspace) 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 Gonzalez
  • A Super-Intelligent Cause"The harmony of naturallaw . . .reveals anintelligence of suchsuperiority that, comparedwith it, all the systematicthinking and acting ofhuman beings is an utterlyinsignificant reflection" (inHeeren, Shew Me God, 66).
  • I. Science Began With GodII. Science Departed from GodIII. Science Returns to GodA. Philosophical ResponseB. Scientific Response1. The Origin of the Universe2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe3. The Specified Complexity of Life
  • What is Specified Complexity?Leslie Orgel: “Living organisms are distinguished bytheir specified complexity. Crystals… fail to qualify asliving because they lack complexity; random polymersfail to qualify because they lack specificity” (The Origin ofLife, 189).Crystals are specified but not complex.A Crystal: Star Star Star Star Star StarRandom polymers are complex but not specified.Polypeptide: TGELSIDHT BTWORMHOC PUOXHDMBTLife is both specified and complex.Protein: “A star is shinning brightly in the sky.”
  • Languages Have Specified ComplexityHubert Yockey: “The sequencehypothesis applies directly to theprotein and the genetic text as wellas to written languages andtherefore the treatment ismathematically identical” (Journalof Theoretical Biology, 1981).
  • Information TheoryLetter sequencereveals whetherinformation isbeing conveyed bya series of letters,even if one doesnot know thelanguage.Claude E. Shannon
  • Intelligent Design fromIntelligent Design froman Intelligent Being!an Intelligent Being!Intelligent Design fromIntelligent Design froman Intelligent Being!an Intelligent Being!TTTT KK EE OO UUHH GG RRBBMMTTTTEE EEAAAA AAGGOO MM__
  • Former Atheist Sir FredHoyle"Biochemical systems areexceedingly complex, so muchso that the chance of theirbeing formed through randomshuffling of simple organicmolecules is exceedinglyminute, to a point indeedwhere it is insensiblydifferent from zero." Thus,based on analogy it isreasonable to postulate "...an
  • Former Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle“Believing that lifehappened by purechange is like believingthat a Boeing 747resulted from a tornadoraging through ajunkyard! [even if thejunk was Boeing 747parts]”
  • GCCytosine Guanine3Genetic Code’s Four NucleotidesSugar &PhosphateMoleculesBase PairsTAAdenine ThymineATGCAGTACT1 24
  • One Ameba=1,000 SetsOne Ameba=1,000 Sets
  • Former Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle“A common sense interpretationof the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed withphysics, as well as chemistry andbiology, and that there are noblind forces worth speaking aboutin nature” (“The Universe: Past andPresent Reflections,” Engineering andScience (November, 1981), 12.
  • SETI: One Message Proves anIntelligent Cause (Carl Sagan)
  • Human Brain = 20 millionvolumes of genetic information!
  • 20 million = 1000 volumeson each seat!
  • Former Atheist Alanandage"As I said before, the world istoo complicated in all of its partsto be due to chance alone. I amconvinced that the existence oflife with all its order in each ofits organisms is simply too wellput together. Each part of aliving thing depends on all itsother parts to function. How doeseach part know? How is each partspecified at conception. The moreone learns of biochemistry the moreunbeliev- able it becomes unless
  • Response of Atheists:“Nature-of-the-Gap Fallacy”“It became an accepted doctrine that lifenever arises except from life. So far asactual evidence goes, this is still the onlypossible conclusion. But since it is aconclusion that seems to lead back to somesupernatural creative act, it is a conclusionthat [naturalistic] scientific men find verydifficult of acceptance” (J. W. N. Sullivan,The Limitations of Science, 94).
  • The Argumentfrom Specified Complexity1. Human language has specifiedcomplexity.2. Life (DNA) has specified complexity.3. The letter frequency is the same inboth life (DNA) and in a language.4. But language has an intelligentcreator.5. Therefore, life has an intelligent
  • Why Positing Natural Causes forSpecified Complexity is not Scientific1. Science is based on observation and repetition.2. There is no observed repetition in the present thatnatural causes produce specified complexity.3. So, there is no scientific basis for positing a naturalcause for specified complexity.4. Science about the past is based on the principle ofuniformity (the present is key to the past).5. Hence, the only scientific basis for positing a cause forthe specified complexity of first life in the universeis evidence for an intelligent cause.
  • What About “The God-of-the-Gap”Objection?1. It is based on the false premise that allcauses 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 callsfor an intelligent cause; It is thepresence of specific evidence that callsfor an intelligent cause.
  • Two Types of CausesNatural Intelligent
  • NaturalNatural IntelligentIntelligentTWO TYPES OF CAUSESTWO TYPES OF CAUSESSand Dune Sand Castle
  • Two Types of CausesNatural IntelligentWater Falls Power PlantCrystals ChandelierSand Dunes Sand CastleRound stones ArrowheadsClouds Skywriting
  • Principles of Science Lead to God1. Principle of Causality: All events have a cause (leads to God asCause of the universe).2. Principle of Uniformity (Analogy): Past events have similarcauses to present ones (leads to an intelligent Cause of theuniverse {via anthropic principle} and of first life {via specifiedcomplexity}).3. Principle of Continuity: There is an unbroken chain of causalevents extending into the remote past (This is falsified by BigBang evidence).4. Primary Cause [God] is responsible for the origin of the worldand life (which are singularities), but secondary causes (naturalforces) are responsible for the regular operation of the naturalworld (which makes creation possible and preserves natural lawfrom a “God-of-the gaps” action in the operation of the regularevents of the natural world).
  • If God, then Miracles and Natural Law“But if we admit God, must weadmit miracles? Indeed, indeed,you have no security against it.That is the bargain.” Theologysays. “Admit God and the riskof a few miracles, and I in returnwill ratify your faith in theuniformity as regards theoverwhelming majority ofevents” (C. S. Lewis, Miracles,109).
  • What About “The God-of-the-Gap” Objection?1. “God-of-the-gaps” is a valid objection when appliedto empirical science, that is, the operation of theuniverse (because regular patterns are alwaysproduced by natural law causes, even if we do notknow what they are).2. But singularities like the origin of matter and of lifeare not regular events. Hence, they do notautomatically call for a natural cause.2. When applies to singularities, it is based on the falsepremise 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 anintelligent cause; It is the presence of specific evidencethat calls for an intelligent cause.
  • Forensic Science Empirical Science(Origin Science) (Operation Science)Studies the Past Studies the PresentStudies Singularities Studies RegularitiesEvents are Unrepeatable Events are RepeatableHow Things Originate How Things OperateDifferent PrinciplesCausality ObservationUniformity (Analogy) RepetitionScience: Two Types
  • Conclusion1. It is wrong to use a “God-of-the-gaps” move inempirical science (dealing with presentregular events (as Newton did).2. It is not a “God-of-the-gap” fallacy to invokean intelligent cause of singular events thatshow evidence of intelligent causality.3. In fact, it is a “Nature-of-the gap” fallacy toassume a natural cause in the face of evidencefor an intelligent cause (such as specifiedcomplexity of first life and the anthropicevidence of the fine-tuning of the universe).
  • “Nature-of-the-gap”Fallacy“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that areagainst common sense is the key to understandingthe real struggle between [naturalistic] science andthe supernatural. We take the side of [naturalistic)science in spite of the patent absurdity of some ofits constructs… because we have a priorcommitment to materialism. It is not that themethods and institutions of science somehowcompel us to accept a materialistic explanation ofthe phenomenal world but, on the contrary, thatwe are forced by our a priori adherence tomaterial causes…. Moreover that materialism isabsolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in thedoor” (Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books,
  • Two Types of CausesNatural IntelligentWater Falls Power PlantCrystals ChandelierSand Dunes Sand CastleRound stones ArrowheadsClouds SkywritingThere is no scientific evidence based onobservation and repetition in the presentfor a natural cause of anything in theright column!
  • Belief that God Exists:Does Science Support It?
  • Former Atheist Francis Collins:“The Big Bang cries outfor a divine explanation. Itforces us to the conclusionthat nature had a definitebeginning. I cannot seehow nature could havecreated itself. Only asupernatural force that isoutside of space and timecould have done that” (TheLanguage of God, 67).
  • “Those scientists who pointto the Mind of God do notmerely advance a series ofarguments or a process ofsyllogistic reasoning.Rather, they propound avision of reality thatemerges from theconceptual heart of modernscience and imposes itselfon the rational mind. It is avision that I personally findcompelling and irrefutable”(p. 112).World famous formerAtheist: Antony Flew
  • I. Science Began With GodII. Science Departed from GodIII. Science Returns to God
  • God was Rediscovered--• With A Big Bang• In a Little Box
  • Some Scientist’s InitialReactions• Arthur Eddington:"Philosophically, the notion ofa beginning of the presentorder of Nature is repugnant tome…. I should like to find agenuine loophole" (in Heeren,81).• Einstein: “This circumstance[of an expanding Universe]irritates me." And "To admitsuch possibilities seemssenseless" Why? "I believe in
  • Other Reactions to aSupernaturalCreator:• Julian Huxley: "For my own part,the sense of spiritual reliefwhich comes from rejecting theidea of God as a supernaturalbeing is enormous..." (Huxley, RR,32, emphasis added).Friedrich Nietzsche: "If onewere to prove this God of theChristians to us, we should beeven less able to believe in him"
  • St. Paul’sDeclaration:• He speaks of those who “…suppress the truth by theirwickedness because what may beknown about God is plain tothem, because God has made itplain to them. For since thecreation of the world Godsinvisible qualities--hiseternal power and divinenature--have been clearlyseen, being understood from
  • Creation vs. Evolution:The Scientific EvidenceCopyright by Norman L. Geisler 2006
  • Age ofMammalsAge of FishesAge ofInvertebratesAge ofReptilesAge ofAmphibiansMacroevolution - Unlimited Change
  • DoesSimilarity ProveaCommonDoesSimilarity ProveaCommon AncestorAncestoror aCommon Creator?or aCommon Creator?
  • Does Progress Prove Evolution?Or Does it Show Intelligent Intervention?
  • Suppose a Link is Missing
  • Suppose a Link is MissingDoes Finding it Prove Evolution?
  • Micro-Biologist MichaelBehe"No one at Harvard University,no one at the National Institutesof Health, no member of theNational Academy of Sciences, noNobel prize winner--no one at allcan give a detailed account of howthe cilium, or vision, or bloodclotting, or any complexbiochemical process might havedeveloped in a Darwinian fashion."He adds, "Other examples ofirreducible complexity abound,including aspects of DNA
  • "The conclusion ofintelligent design flowsnaturally from the dataitself--not from sacred booksor sectarian beliefs.Inferring that biochemicalsystems were designed by anintelligent agent is a humdrumprocess that requires no newprinciples of logic orscience" (Behe, DBB, 193)."Life on earth at its most
  • Atheism: Nothingmade something fromnothing!Anthony Kenny: "Aproponent of [the bigbang] theory, at leastif he is an atheist,must believe that thematter of the universecame form nothing and
  • Response to MethodologicalAtheism1. It correctly limits scientificunderstanding about the presentregularities to secondary (natural)causes (Newtons "God-of-the-gap” iswrong).2. It correctly assumes principles ofcausality and uniformity withoutwhich we can’t know the past.3. However, Laplace wrongly assumesthat:a. All events need a natural cause.b. Analogy calling for an
  • Failure to distinguishorigin andoperation scienceOrigin Science Operation ScienceAbout origin of things About operation ofthingsHow things came about How thingsfunctionPast singularities PresentregularitiesForensic science Empirical sciencePrimary or secondary causes Only secondarycausesBased on: Based on:
  • Hume’s Argument forNaturalism (1748) used byLaplace (1785f):1. Natural laws describe regularoccurrences.2. A miracle is by definition a rareoccurrence.3. The evidence for the regular isalways greater than that for therare.4. Wise persons base their belief onthe greater evidence.5. Hence, wise persons should notbelieve in miracles.
  • The CommonDenominator:Hume’s Argument has afalse premise.1. Natural laws describe regularoccurrences.2. A miracle is by definition a rareoccurrence.3. The evidence for the regular isalways greater than that for therare.4. Wise persons base their belief onthe greater evidence.
  • A Response to HumesArgument:Evidence for rare events canbe greater:Rare Events Accepted byNaturalists:A. Big Bang origin of theuniverse.B. Spontaneous generation offirst life.
  • A. The Fall ofNaturalism• 1. The Cause beyond the universemust be supernatural, since itcaused the entire natural worldfrom nothing (thus refutingLaplaces naturalistic continuityprinciple).• 2. The evidence for a singularitycan be greater than for aregularity (thus refuting Humesanti-supernaturalism).• 3. The principles of regularity anduniformity reveal that only an a
  • B. The Return toTheismStephen Hawking: He describedhow the value of manyfundamental numbers innatures laws "seem to havebeen very finely adjusted tomake possible thedevelopment of life" and howGod appears to have "verycarefully chosen the initial
  • The Blind Watch-Maker Objection1. Life is not irreduciblycomplex (It has parts).2. Organisms like the eye hadother functions3. Not all order calls for adesigner (cf. Hurricanes)Response:1. This violates scientificprinciple of regularity.2. Nature can tear apart but notput together.3. Sight is not possible until
  • Imperfect Design Objection: World isnot a perfect design. Hence, it did nothave a perfect Designer.Response:1. The design does not have to be perfect toneed a Designer.2. Perfect Designer can make less thanperfect designs (He may have more abilitythan he uses).3. Imperfections may not have been in theoriginal design (but in subsequenttampering with it).
  • Objection of EndlessDesigner: Every designerneeds a designer. Thereis no first Designer.Response:1. Every cause does notneed a cause; only everyeffect does.2. Every designer does notneed a cause; only everydesign does.3. Everything does not
  • Objection based onchance: Chancecombinations over longperiods of time canaccount for complexity.Response:1.Chance does not causeanything; only forces do.2.Principle of regularityshows natural forces donot produce life’scomplexity.
  • The Return to TheismBehe: "The result of thesecumulative efforts toinvestigate the cell--toinvestigate life at themolecular level--is a loud,clear, piercing cry ofdesign! The result is sounambiguous and so significantthat it must be ranked as oneof the greatest achievements
  • Either Creation or Spontaneous Generation“Either life was created on the earth by the willof a being outside the grasp of scientificunderstanding, or it evolved on our planetspontaneously, through chemical reactionsoccurring in non-living matter lying on thesurface of our planet” (Jastrow, Until the SunDies, 62).Noble Prize-winning biologist George Waldadded, “there is no third position” (Wald,“The Origin of Life,” in Life: Origin andEvolution, 1979, ed. T. E. Fulsom).
  • Does Life Have a Natural Cause?Does Life Have a Natural Cause?Miller-Urey Experiment 1953Miller-Urey Experiment 1953
  • Many Intelligent ChoicesMany Intelligent Choices1. Theapparatus1. Theapparatus2. TheChemicals2. TheChemicals3. TheElectrode3. TheElectrode4. Eliminatingthe4. Eliminatingtheoxygenoxygen5. Heatingand5. HeatingandcoolingcoolingResults:Results: Chemicals; NoChemicals; Nolife!life!
  • Spontaneous Generation of FirstSpontaneous Generation of FirstLife is not ScientificLife is not Scientific1. Itis contrarytoempiricalscience(Redi1. Itis contrarytoempiricalscience(Redi andPasteurandPasteurdisprovedit).disprovedit).2. TheChemicals theyuseddidn’texistin2. TheChemicals theyuseddidn’texistin earlyearthinearlyearthinthoseconcentrations.thoseconcentrations.3. Oxygenexcludedexistedinearlyearth.3. Oxygenexcludedexistedinearlyearth.4. Ithadillegitimateinvestigator4. Ithadillegitimateinvestigatorinterference.interference.5. Theyignoreddestructiveforces.5. Theyignoreddestructiveforces.6. Theresults werenotalivingorganism.6. Theresults werenotalivingorganism.
  • No Spontaneous Generation• Brooks and Shaw: “In fact no such materialshave been found anywhere on earth” (Originsand Development of Living Systems, 396).• William Day: “A curious flaw of human natureis to permit the imagery of a catchy phrase toshape one’s reasoning. Haldane’s hot dilute soupbecame “primordial soup,” a feature that hasbeen popularized for nearly fifty years withoutgeological evidence that it ever existed” (Genesison Planet Earth, 231-232).
  • The Eye Made Darwin ShudderThe Eye Made Darwin Shudder
  • Spinoza in brief:1. Miracles are violationsof natural laws.2. Natural laws areimmutable.3. It is impossible toviolate immutablelaws.4. Therefore, miracles are
  • Response to Spinoza:1. It begs the question toassume that natural lawsare immutable.2.It is based on an outdated"closed" view of theuniverse (exceptions arepossible in an "open"universe).3.Natural laws don’tprescribe what can occur;but only describe what does
  • Laplace: No Creation orMiracles"The calculus ofprobabilities ... appreciates thegreatest improbability oftestimonies in regard toextraordinary facts." And "thereare things so extraordinary thatnothing can balance theirimprobability." Such are theclaims for miracles. Hence, "Onemay judge by this the immenseweight of testimonies necessary to
  • Reason for This ConclusionPrinciple of Continuity would rule outcreation—There was no beginningPrinciple of Analogy would rule outmiracles—No supernatural causes inthe present.Thus, all causes in nature would benatural causes = no Creator!
  • However, if the universe has abeginning, then this naturalisticconclusion would not follow because:1. There would be a first Causebeyond the natural world.2. This Cause would have to besuper-natural.
  • B. The Return toTheismBehe: "The result of thesecumulative efforts toinvestigate the cell--toinvestigate life at themolecular level--is a loud,clear, piercing cry ofdesign! The result is sounambiguous and sosignificant that it must beranked as one of the greatestachievements in the history