The debate regarding God’s existence has been raging for
centuries but recently the Atheists seem to have seized the initiative as their
numbers increase. Of course the
challenge the Atheists present to the Theist is to prove that God exists. That proof must stand the test of the
scientific process in order to be proof.
What has been missing is the challenge to the Atheist to prove God
doesn’t exist using the scientific method.
Naturally neither side has been able to show convincing proof so the
debate rages on. But recently this
debate has become more strident as the Atheists present scientific findings on
Evolution, First Cause, and the Origin of Life.
All of these theories – which is what they are – presented as facts even
though the “facts” are actually presumptions, assumptions, opinions, and
guesses. . The era of Faith Based
Science is upon us.
Essentially the scientific position is that life on Earth
began as a random event triggered by some unknown process or combination of
events resulting in self replicating molecule.
To date experiments using inorganic components have succeeded in
creating organic molecules from inorganic materials but have failed to yield a
living organism. Complicating the matter
is the materials used in creating the organic molecules are toxic to life or
the resultant molecules are toxic to life.
But there is an even more difficult scientific hurdle to overcome and
that is the fact that the probability of DNA being randomly generated is so
great as to be impossible. Recognizing
that life being created as a random event or even a series of random events is
so improbable the “scientists” have postulated a new theory called
“Panspermia”. Essentially this theory
states that life on Earth was introduced via a meteorite that carried life to
Earth. Of course this really doesn’t
answer the question because we still don’t know how life began. The obvious conclusion is that scientists
really don’t know how life began but they know God wasn’t involved.
If science can’t really offer any scientific proof about the
Origin of Life what about the origin of the universe – the “First Cause” or Big
Bang. Science can trace the universe and
everything in it back to the first nanosecond.—the instant of creation. Of course the problem is what was there
before the moment of creation? For those
who believe in God, the answer is God but that isn’t acceptable to the
scientist because it cannot be proved via science. The problem lies with space itself since it
was the Big Bang that created space meaning there was not place for that bundle
of energy to exist prior to the creation of the space in which it could
exist.
To solve this problem scientifically scientists have
postulated various possibilities, none involving God. Several theories have been postulated but
none have been accepted as the probable one. Essentially the scientists agree
that none of their theories can be tested or proved but they argue that that’s
the best they can do. The best answer
they have come up with so far is that the universe emerged spontaneously from a
random quantum fluctuation in some sort of primordial quantum vacuum. Once you have absorbed this description and
examine it critically it does raise some questions. It assumes that this quantum vacuum that the
entire world of quantum particles and interactions already exists. Please not that the particles have mass and
thus must have some space in which to exist.
All of these particles are composed of energy and a zero energy quantum state
is impossible. Scientists like Hawkings
and other scientists claim that the universe emerged out of quantum nothingness.
They are making a claim that does not meet the scientific test much less a
logical one. But those who deny God but believe in science accept this because
they have faith in science. And brings
us to the third problem faced by science – Evolution.
Evolution is a much thornier problem because there is so
much fossil evidence supporting it.
Scientists can trace life back millions of years and show the march from
sea to land to the air. They have
created charts and diagrams showing how one animal or group of animals has
descended from a common ancestor.
Unfortunately many of the examples used are actually simply examples of
environmental adaptation and not speciation.
Commonly there are gaps of millions of years and the fossil record does
not preserve these speciation events so these connections are assumed. The major assumption is that these ‘assumed” lineages
are that these intermediate fossils exist at the proper point and thus the
transitions are plausible.
The speciation events are virtually impossible to document
and even within the Cenozoic these are hard to document. In fact if the specimens are separated by
more than 100,000 years the fossil record cannot show anything about how a
species arose. In effect all of the
claims and charts showing the relationships between species during the
Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic eras are assumptions and not demonstrable
facts. The Cenozoic is more recent but
even here where the fossil record is more complete the evolutionary changes are
incomplete and the transitions between species are estimated but not fully
documented in the fossil record.
This almost total lack of evidence regarding speciation
leads to the problem of evolution over long periods versus the problem that
some species just suddenly appear in the fossil record with no precursors. This has led to the theory of “Punctuated
Equilibrium” which claims that some speciation events occur over very short periods
of 20,000 years but no more than 80,000.
The problem is that there is really very little evidence to separate the
adaptation of a species to its environment and the separation of one species
into a totally new one.
While the scientists claim they have the answers to the
origin of the universe, the origin of life, and evolution, the reality is these
are just claims largely unsupported by facts.
In fact the scientific answers to these questions are filled with words
like, believed to be, estimated, and probably.
The logical conclusion is that science and scientists rely on faith in
science but that faith is really no different than religious faith.