http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1602
Will Science Eventually Kill God?
Impossible
concept, and yet it has captured the attention of the news media of
late (e.g., Wolchover, 2012). Will the bulk of society likely tend to
continue its movement away from God in the coming years? Probably, since
that has historically been the trend, inside and outside the Bible. But
God has never been eliminated from human thought in the thousands of
years of human existence, because His providential hand brings
punishment on societies at those times when the population in sufficient
numbers turns its back on God. Then inevitably follows a return by many
to spiritual matters (see
Miller, 2008).
Still, according to
NBC News, Sean Carroll, a theoretical
cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, believes that
science will eventually remove the need for God in the equation to
explain certain Universal phenomena. He argues that, “God’s sphere of
influence has shrunk drastically in modern times” (Wolchover). We are
not sure where he is getting his information, because statistically, the
world is en masse (84%) theist (e.g., “Major Religions of the World,”
2007), and the percentage of the population in this country that
believes that God has played a role in the origin of the Universe (78%)
is far beyond the secular evolutionary community (15%) (see
Miller,
2012). While there certainly has been an increase in the ranks of the
non-religious community in the past several years, the Earth is still,
by far, theistic.
Carroll further argues that many of the phenomena that were once
highlighted as proof of the existence of God, since science could not
explain those phenomena, are gradually being eliminated, in his opinion.
He believes that the need for a God to cause the Big Bang to “bang” is
side-stepped by the idea of an eternal Universe—a Universe like the one
theorized by the Oscillating Universe Big Bang model. [NOTE: This is not
to say that we believe the Big Bang Theory to be true. We have outlined
several issues that show the Big Bang to be false elsewhere (e.g.,
Thompson, Harrub, and May,
2003). We are merely addressing his assertions.] He believes that the
problem of having a necessary cause for the Universe, even if the
Universe is not eternal, is side-stepped by the idea that time started
at the Big Bang, and therefore, there is no need of a pre-existing
cause. According to Alex Filippenko, an astrophysicist at the University
of California, Berkeley that is quoted in the article, “The Big Bang
could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there.
With the laws of physics, you can get universes.” Carroll further argues
that the “fine tuning” argument used by theists with regard to many
physical constants that seem perfectly suited for our existence, can be
side-stepped using theories about parallel universes beyond our’s
(Wolchover).
Several comments are worth mentioning in response to Carroll. First of
all, notice the tacit admission that God is still needed to explain some
things in the Universe, even if they might eventually be eliminated in
Carroll’s mind.
Many issues that point to God have been eliminated, in Carroll’s opinion: but that implies that some remain.
Second, his attempt to side-step the problem of needing a “trigger” for
the Big Bang by giving credence to theories that postulate the
eternality of the Universe, does not lend to the idea that science has
eliminated the need for God in that area. On the contrary, science has
already spoken on that matter. Nothing lasts forever, according to the 2
nd Law of Thermodynamics (see
Miller,
2007 for an in depth discussion of the Laws of Thermodynamics as they
relate to the Universe as a whole). So such theories are not in keeping
with the findings of science. Since nothing lasts forever in nature, the
Universe could not have lasted forever—God is needed.
His further attempt to side-step the issue of needing a cause for a
non-eternal Universe Big Bang model, by arguing that time began at the
Big Bang, is reminiscent of Stephen Hawking’s recent comments on the
matter. However, as we have discussed elsewhere (see
Miller,
2011), that idea is not in keeping with the scientific evidence either.
The Universe could not have caused itself since, in nature, nothing
comes from nothing. Energy cannot spontaneously generate, according to
the evidence from science—specifically the 1
st Law of Thermodynamics (see
Miller,
2007). Theories that postulate such erroneous concepts are not in
keeping with science. So, once again, science has not eliminated the
need for God in that instance either. The existence of the Universe
still requires an adequate Cause, according to the evidence from
science.
Filippenko’s comments merely highlight another issue that science
cannot explain without God—the existence of the laws of physics. A poem
requires a poet. A law requires a law writer. As eminent atheistic
theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State
University, Paul Davies, noted, “You need to know where those laws come
from. That’s where the mystery lies—the laws” (“The Creation Question…,”
2011). The atheist has no explanation for how the laws of science could
have written themselves into existence, and there is no logical
explanation outside of a cosmic Law Writer.
Carroll’s attempts to side-step the issue of the theist’s finely tuned
Universe argument by postulating parallel Universes is not a sound
argument. Science has not proven such a theory. No alternate Universe
has ever been witnessed, and therefore is outside the scope of the
evolutionary community’s own definition of empirical science. Such an
argument is mere conjecture and speculation—not evidence. So again,
science has not dismissed the need for God in this instance either.
Time and again, Carroll attempts to make his case
for science eliminating God, by relying on theories that cannot be verified with science or that blatantly
contradict the evidence from science.
So, in the end, Carroll has not proven that science has or could ever
eliminate God. The only thing he has proven is that atheists are not
self-consistent in their viewpoint on this matter.
Is it true that many people today are accepting such “evidence” and are
therefore turning from God? Are they in the process causing God to be
eliminated from their minds—i.e., not “retain[ing] God in their
knowledge” (Romans 1:28)? Is it likely that there will be more and more
people in the coming years that join the bandwagon in rejecting God?
Definitely. However, such behavior is not due to the evidence from true
science, but rather, due to their own desires (cf. Romans 1:20-32).
Ironically, while such atheists wishfully dream that science will one
day kill God, science has actually already ruled out atheism as an
explanation for the origin of the Universe (see
www.apologeticspress.org for evidence on this subject).
REFERENCES
“The Creation Question: A Curiosity Conversation” (2011),
Discovery Channel, August 7.
“Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents” (2007),
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,”
Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Miller, Jeff (2008), “The Cycle of Unbelief,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2495.
Miller, Jeff (2011), “A Review of
Discovery Channel’s ‘Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?’”
Reason & Revelation, 31[10]:98-107,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1004&article=1687.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “Literal Creationists Holding Their Ground in the Polls,”
Reason & Revelation, 32[9]:94-95, September,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1093&article=2040#.
Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part 1],”
Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:33-47, May,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=541&article=540.
Wolchover, Natalie (2012), “Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?”
NBC News: Science, September 18,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49074598/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.UFnWIlEpCeZ.
As
Moses’ life drew to a close, God issued to the nation of Israel the
keys to national health, i.e., the specific principles necessary to
sustaining national existence. The book of Deuteronomy records these
great admonitions that serve as extremely relevant advice for America.
One insight pertains to the level of wealth and prosperity that
characterizes the lifestyle of the average American. Indeed, this
country has achieved a greater level of prosperity for a greater number
of its citizens than any nation in human history. America’s standard of
living is the envy of the civilized world. Even the poorest American
lives far better than much of the world’s population.
