"God did it!" An argument from ignorance or evidence?
Regis NicollRegis Nicoll is a Centurion of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He spent 30 years as a nuclear specialist, and is now a freelance writer who writes on current issues from a Christian perspective. His work regularly appears on BreakPoint online and SALVO magazine among other places. Regis also teaches and speaks on a variety of worldview topics, covering everything from Sharing the Gospel in a Postmodern Generation to String Theory. He currently serves as lay pastor of Hamilton Anglican Fellowship (www.hamiltonaf.org) in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
- 2009 May 12
“But over centuries of research we have learned that the idea ‘God did it’ has never advanced our understanding of nature an iota, and that is why we abandoned it.” (Jerry Coyne)
In a recent essay in The New Republic, evolutionary scientist Jerry Coyne asked, “Does the empirical nature of science contradict the revelatory nature of faith? Are the gaps between them so great that the two institutions must be considered essentially antagonistic?” Coyne has no doubt that the answer is yes.
Religion is so hopelessly inimical to scientific progress that any attempt to reconcile them is futile. As Coyne explains, “Accepting both science and conventional faith leaves you with a double standard.” And to make sure you are clear on what religion is at issue, Coyne adds that “rational on the origin of blood clotting, irrational on the Resurrection; rational on dinosaurs, irrational on virgin births.”
While hallowed bodies, like the National Academy of Sciences, claim publicly that faith and science do not conflict, privately, their “dirty little secret” is that religion is a science-stopper. Their public face, Coyne lets on, is all in the interest of maintaining public trust—one that is overwhelming religious and, professedly, Christian—and with it, public funding.
To the illuminati, a believer lumbers to the edge of every frontier of knowledge, poised to retire his investigations with “God did it!” contentment. Meanwhile, dead ends caused by their own faith in scientific materialism remain unexamined—the premature designation of “vestigial” organs and “junk” DNA being two examples.
Contrary to modern criticism, the scientist who approaches the world as a product of intelligence, rather than of matter and motion, is less likely to stop short of discovery. Instead of dismissing a feature that, at first glance, appears inert, unnecessary or just plain mystifying, he is more inclined the push the envelope of investigation to unravel its function and purpose.
Rather than obstructing science, Christianity, with its emphasis on a personal Creator, inspired an age of discovery that opened the way for science.
The ancients generally viewed the world as an unpredictable place governed by the fates or by the whims of the gods. But once investigators understood the universe as a creation—the work of a rational God embedded with rational principles—they dared to imagine that discovery was possible. One of the first was an astronomer whose theories ignited the scientific revolution.
Speculations about a sun-centered universe had been around for some time; but challenges to the Aristotelian model refined by Ptolemy didn’t gain serious attention until the “Copernican Turn” in the 16th century.
Nicolaus Copernicus was a Christian who understood the universe as an intelligible creation that operated according to mathematically coherent principles. His initial attraction to heliocentrism was not the result of new observational data, but of his notion that the sun—symbolic of God as Light and Lamp—seemed a fitful center of divine activity. He, along with other early researchers, believed that the elegant structure observed in creation should be describable in an elegant fashion. Thus, when heliocentrism proved more mathematically simple than the reigning earth-centered model, it gained a slow following.
Like Copernicus, Johannes Kepler was a man of faith who believed that the mysteries of nature could be unlocked with the key of mathematics. Kepler put it this way: “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He has revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”
Kepler’s belief in the mathematical precision of the universe led to his discovery of three fundamental laws of planetary motion—the foremost, that the planetary orbits are elliptical, rather than circular as modeled by Copernicus.
While the discovery of mathematical elegance was the product of faith for these pioneers, it has been the source of faith for others. In his book, Truth Decay, Douglas Groothuis shares the account of a Russian physicist: "I was in
Copernicus and Kepler published their paradigm-shifting theories without much controversy. It was a different story for Galileo, who drew the full ire of the Catholic Church.
THE GALILEO AFFAIR
To hear the secular elites tell it, Galileo was a hero-martyr in the enduring struggle of free inquiry against the tyranny of Religion. But the truth is that the Roman Curia did not object to his heliocentrism on religious grounds, but on scientific ones.
Despite the groundbreaking work of Copernicus and Kepler, the Catholic Church and the general populace remained thoroughly Aristotelian. Resistance to heliocentrism was due to three things: 1) it was contrary to the common sense perception of a static earth, 2) there was no accompanying physical mechanism to account for it, and 3) it lacked a sufficient body of evidence to overturn a model that had proven quite successful for centuries.
Compounding the problem, Galileo published his work in Italian, the language of common folk, rather than in the scholarly language of Latin. It was an attempt to mainstream his theory by bringing the force of public acceptance to bear upon the scientific establishment. Galileo added to his troubles by writing scathing satires intended to embarrass his clerical critics.
For his offenses, Galileo was sentenced to a short prison stay followed by house arrest in his own villa until his death in 1642. While the Church’s punitive actions were overly harsh, its reluctance to accept novel theories in the absence of scientific vetting was reasonable.
Nevertheless, secular elites summon Galileo from the grave as the star witness in the ongoing case of Science v. Religion. Much overlooked is that while the Catholic Church was resistant to the new theories, not all Christians were. Specifically, Lutherans and Calvinists encouraged, and even helped fund, Copernicus and Kepler in the publication of their works.
A CLOCK WORK
The modern charge against religion would have been summarily dismissed by the vanguard of science, including the father of the mechanical worldview, Isaac Newton.
Isaac Newton was a gifted polymath whose three laws of motion and law of gravity were the crowning achievements of the scientific revolution.
For some, the clock-work universe allowed for a Creator, but not a Tinkerer. For others, it allowed for neither. For many, it led to brimming confidence in science as a wellspring of knowledge that would enable man to harness and manipulate nature.
It is a great irony that
Against those who were eager to embrace the machine model,
ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS
Christians remained in the vanguard of scientific discovery well into the 19th century. Groundbreaking advances in electro-magnetism, microbiology, medicine, genetics, chemistry, atomic theory, and agriculture were the works of men like John Dalton, Andre Ampere, Georg Ohm, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, William Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, and George Washington Carver—all believers whose achievements were the outworking of their Christian faith.
Scientists in the truest sense of the word, these were investigators who doggedly followed the evidence wherever it led, approaching the gaps of understanding not with “God did it!” resignation, but with “God created it” expectation.
Whether they realize it or not, every scientist, including Jerry Coyne, stands on the shoulders of these giants. As German physicist Ernst Mach once acknowledged, “Every unbiased mind must admit that the age in which the chief development of the science of mechanics took place was an age of predominately theological cast.”
...What are your thoughts. Share them with us here.