Pointless Christianity-science battle

Delroy Williams, Guest Columnist

Faith in God and science is not incompatible. The notion that there is combat between Christianity and science is intensely flawed.

God and science are not alternative explanations. God is the agent who designed and upholds the universe, while science tells us about how the universe works and about the laws that govern its behaviour.

Choosing between God and science is like choosing between Sir Frank Whittle and science as an explanation of how the jet engine works. In order to explain how the jet engine works, we need a scientific explanation, but we also need an agent explanation in terms of Sir Frank, the inventor.

It would be immature for us to conclude that since we have the laws and mechanisms of jet propulsion as an explanation for the jet engine, Sir Frank is fiction. As Oxford professor of pure mathematics, John Lennox, points out, "The existence of mechanisms and laws is not an argument for the absence of an agent who set those laws and mechanisms in place."

Professor Lennox posits that confusing mechanism and/or law on the one hand, and agency on the other, is a mistake easily made by ignoring metaphysics.

The fact that we live in a universe in which science can be done is a major argument for God. Science is built on FAITH in the rational intelligibility of the universe. Albert Einstein remarked that "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." Why should we believe that the universe is rationally intelligible, if the brain is just a product of mindless unguided forces?

Chemist John Haldane understood this and asked if the thoughts in the mind are just the motions of atoms in the brain, why should we believe anything it tells us, including scientific truths? We would be on firm footing to doubt the reliability of the human cognitive faculties, and consequently any beliefs they produced.

The naturalistic view of reality undermines the rationality upon which science depends. If we exit God, science becomes fiction. No wonder theoretical physicist and Nobel Laureate John Polkinghorne remarked that physics is powerless to explain its faith in the rational intelligibility of the universe.

Modern science emerged in a Christian context and can be traced to the conviction that the universe is governed by a single God and not many gods governing his own province. C.S. Lewis puts it rather succinctly: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver."

It was belief in an intelligent designer that convinced the great pioneers of science - Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clerk Maxwell and many others - that science could be done. It is, therefore, not coincidental that science, as a sustained, organised enterprise, only arose in Christendom.

Unifying concept

The Marxist Joseph Needham in explaining why science did not arise in China as it did in the West, remarked that it lacked the unifying concept of a Creator. Therefore, belief in God did not hinder science; it was the very motor that drove science.

The authority of science is perceived by many to be so strong that science will ultimately explain everything. Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar remarked that it is so easy to see the limitations of science. Science cannot answer ultimate questions such as, how did everything begin? Why are we here? What is the point of living?

Francis Collins, the second director of the human genome project, writes, "Science is powerless to answer questions such as, 'Why did the universe come into being?' and 'What is the meaning of human existence?'," It is vitally important that we understand, the limits of science, where science ends, and where other disciplines begin. As a matter of fact, the success of science is linked to the narrowness of the range of its questions and methodology.

Albert Einstein said, "We can speak of the ethical foundations of science, but we cannot speak of the scientific foundations of ethics." The foundation of our legal and moral system is based on Christianity. It would be inane to think that scientific truth can become the basis of a new ethics. The moral landscape cannot be brought under the umbrella of science. The question is, do we want to create a society where moral values become so eroded by a naturalistic framework?

Ancient historians say the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is very powerful. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ we can access by history. If Jesus literally rose from the dead as a matter of history, this would make an enormous difference to our view of the world.

Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and delroyhwilliams@yahoo.com.