Can Science Disprove God?

Suppose that there were no scientific evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, would that disprove God? Or would that necessarily make it irrational to believe in God?

I argue that it wouldn’t – such an overly-skeptical view reveals a flawed epistemology (theory of knowledge). One who makes such a claim is apparently adhering to a strong form of scientism, the view that science is the only source of knowledge. For, there are many non-scientific reasons for belief in God, such as:

The purpose of this blog is not to explore these non-scientific arguments but merely to point out that one cannot call belief in God irrational without also refuting these types of non-scientific arguments. Explore the hypertext links for a sampling if you’re unfamiliar with these arguments. The claim that science is the only source of knowledge is self-refuting – it’s a philosophical claim that cannot be scientifically demonstrated so if science is the only source of knowledge one could not rationally affirm it. Dr. Turek’s Roadrunner Tactic (of applying a claim to itself) reveals this pretty clearly. Most philosophers have long since abandoned this overly narrow epistemology but unfortunately some scientists still hold to it.

Too often skeptics point to prominent scientists who are atheists as though that somehow shows that belief in God must be irrational. I confess that I myself unfortunately went through a period of doubts in the late 1990’s in part because of this fear of how so many of these smart scientists could think that there is no evidence of God.

But is science really even the appropriate discipline for determining God’s existence?

I later came to realize the folly of assuming scientists are best-suited for evaluating evidence for God. Sure a disproportionate number of really intelligent people are scientists but are they really trained so as to be able to best evaluate potential evidence for God? Clearly, they are not trained to evaluate any of the non-scientific evidence I listed above. Many of the most vocal atheistic scientists such as Krauss, Dawkins, and Hawking make numerous philosophical mistakes.

Moreover, science is generally defined such that no appeal to the divine is even considered – this is known as methodological naturalism. Thus, both the nature of the knowledge taught to scientists as well as the methodology they learn for evaluating evidence are not well-suited for evaluating the breadth of evidence and arguments about God.

Dr. Ed Feser, who has been on the CrossExamined podcasts here and here, has an excellent rebuttal to scientism. He critiques Alex Rosenberg’s argument that science can show that God doesn’t exist. First , here is Feser’s summary of Rosenberg’s argument:

1. The predictive power and technological applications of physics are unparalleled by those of any other purported source of knowledge.

2. Therefore what physics reveals to us is all that is real.

Feser goes on to explain: “How bad is this argument?  About as bad as this one:

1. Metal detectors have had far greater success in finding coins and other metallic objects in more places than any other method has.

2. Therefore what metal detectors reveal to us (coins and other metallic objects) is all that is real.

Metal detectors are keyed to those aspects of the natural world susceptible of detection via electromagnetic means (or whatever).  But however well they perform this task — indeed, even if they succeeded on every single occasion they were deployed — it simply wouldn’t follow for a moment that there are no aspects of the natural world other than the ones they are sensitive to.  Similarly, what physics does — and there is no doubt that it does it brilliantly — is to capture those aspects of the natural world susceptible of the mathematical modeling that makes precise prediction and technological application possible.  But here too, it simply doesn’t follow for a moment that there are no other aspects of the natural world.”

But there is also Scientific Evidence for God!

I don’t intend any disrespect for science in this blog – I should mention that I myself have a degree in physics and have worked in scientific/mathematical domains of software engineering for the past 27 years. I have great respect for science and actually I think that God has also left plenty of scientific evidence for His existence. This blog is an introduction to a series making a case that what we have learned from science actually does support theism over atheism. It’s important, however to keep things in perspective! Scientific knowledge is just one aspect of knowledge and a skeptic who hasn’t searched out the non-scientific forms of evidence is making a big mistake. Nevertheless, the church too often provides no response or a weak response to challenges to belief in God from atheistic scientists. I think, therefore, that it is important to look at whether or not there are theistic implications from origins science. Over the next few weeks I’ll be making a case in this blog that the following aspects of science provide evidence that God exists:

  • Origin of Universe
  • Origin of the Laws to Support Life
  • Fine-Tuning of the Initial Conditions of the Universe to Support Life
  • Fine-Tuning of the Constants of Nature
  • Origin of Life

Before we get into the evidence, in my next blog I’ll discuss what would constitute suitable evidence for God from science and some of the objections that invariably arise. A careful philosophical evaluation is in order before laying out the facts so that we can properly interpret them.

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
29 replies
  1. Robert says:

    “Suppose that there were no scientific evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, would that disprove God?”

    > What do you mean “suppose” there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God? There isn’t any. You presented arguments instead of evidence. Fortunately we atheists can see through your smoke and mirrors and sophistry. Arguments are NOT evidence. Let’s see this “evidence” for the existence of God. Evolutionary Theory predicts the author of this article will not respond to my demand for evidence.

    Reply
    • Allen Hainline says:

      Robert, note that this blog is merely the introduction to a series where evidence will be presented so please stay tuned. I just wanted to set the stage and help people realize that even if there were an absence of evidence for God from science that belief in God can still be rationally justified.

      I have one more intro-type blog and then I’ll offer up a series of evidential blogs. It sounds like you’ve surveyed some of the books or articles arguing for scientific evidence for God and found them wanting. I’m curious to know which ones you’ve evaluated. Hopefully you’re engaging with the best arguments and evidence out there on the theistic side.

      As to the accusation of sophistry – I welcome a refutation if you think any arguments thus far are fallacious. Which argument and where is the mistake in logic?

      Reply
  2. moose says:

    mr hainline–i don’t know if there is a god or not, and neither do you, nor does anyone else. IF there is a god–i do not know anything about that god, and neither do you, nor does anyone else. you certainly can’t gain any knowledge about “god” from cavemen authored holy books with all the amazing stories they tell. even if the (un)holy bible is true, the christian god is unworthy of any attention.

    Reply
    • Terry L says:

      A perfect example of what happens when you claim too much:

      >>i don’t know if there is a god or not, and neither do you, nor does anyone else.

      Moose, how could you possibly know what I, or anyone else does not know?

      [Sigh…]

      Reply
  3. Matt N. says:

    Demanding evidence for unfalsifiables is unrealistic in both directions. Apart from direct evidence, in the form of eye witness testimony, which along with forensic evidence, constitutes theism, both deism and atheism can be seen as constructs of circumstantial evidences. Since the existence of a prime mover cannot be dis-proven, nor proven, it seems that we have to consult reason. Both viewpoints, in my opinion, have valid premises, but for me, empirical data, principles like the anthropic principle, and agency, coalesce cleanly into a deistic world view. I find forensic evidence parlayed with the former can instantiate theism cleanly as well. I am definitely open to and interested in hearing competing theories of creation.

    Reply
    • Allen Hainline says:

      Thanks Matt for joining in the conversation. If I understand you right I think I’m in agreement. We’re dealing with making cases based on a weight of evidence rather than claiming proof. I think both sides of this debate should admit as much. I think there are ways of falsifying at least some conceptions of God but only those that are self-contradictory or incoherent. We can prove that some things don’t exist – such as a square circle; but only because it’s impossible for such an entity to exist.

      Reply
      • Matt N. says:

        Sorry Allen, I should have clarified that I was actually trying to address the previous two comments about the article, not the article itself.
        I believe the existence of a personal creator is an ideal notion to run through a philosophical filter and look forward to hearing more about this topic.

        Reply
  4. Robert says:

    Allen,Philosophical arguments- such as the moral argument, the Leibnizian cosmological argument, etc.

    > AGAIN, arguments are not evidence. If you had evidence you would not need to foist this logically flawed argument on us. It’s fatally flawed because it is based upon the fallacy of Special Pleading. If God could have always existed so could have matter and energy. And since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed scientists assume mass-energy has alwas existed in one form or another.

    Fulfilled prophecies

    > We have no evidence independent of the Bible that any of the events that supposedly fulfilled prophecies actually took place. Can you rule out a much more plausible explanation which is that the events are fictional written to conform to popular and well-known prophecies? You cannot and so this argument fails.

    Historical evidence for the resurrection

    > This is simply ridiculous. There is no evidence that Jesus Christ even existed let alone that he resurrected. What is this evidence? Eye witness accounts that exist only in the Bible prove nothing. Using them is like trying to prove Superman exists using the testimonies of Lois Lane, Jimmy Olson and Perry White.

    Religious experience – it’s at least possible in principle that God could reveal Himself through experiences that would justify belief in Him for that person even if not necessarily for others without this evidence

    > Christians would never accept religious experiences from adherents of other religions as proof that their religion is true. But they expect us to accept their personal religious experiences as evidence that their religion is true. This is a sublime combination of arrogance and narrow-mindedness that can only be found in the community of Bible believers.

    \Origin of Universe

    > Prove the universe had a beginning and has not always existed in one form or another. Prove there was a point in the past where nothing existed.

    Origin of the Laws to Support Life

    > All physical laws are simply human descriptions of our observations of the way things happen in the universe. Laws don’t do anything or support anything. We don’t know why large objects attract or distort space-time. We don’t know why things hurled skyward fall back to Earth. Claiming it’s, “The Law of Gravity” explains nothing at all.

    Fine-Tuning of the Initial Conditions of the Universe to Support Life

    > We already know that life fine tunes itself to the environment through evolution by natural selection. The fine tuning argument says that Earth, three fourths of which is covered with water was created especially for man, who has no gills. Most of the universe appears to be very hostile to life. The fine tuning argument denies evolutionary theory, the longest standing, most useful and best established scientific theory there is.

    Fine-Tuning of the Constants of Nature

    > Like what? If you had ever picked up a science book in your adult life, you may have learned that life arose naturally to bridge the gap between the cold of space and the heat of the sun. Then you wouldn’t be torturing your own mind with all these absurd religious superstitions you struggle to hang onto. Dump the ancient comic book, pick up a science book

    Origin of Life

    > Creationists love to focus on the one question scientists cannot answer. However they have some pretty good ideas and they’re al a lot better than your man from dirt, woman from a rib failed hypothesis.

    The arguments you have presented are the worst arguments in the history of bad arguments as I have clearly demonstrated. The fact that you actually fell for these bad arguments and then even worse try to foist them on other people tells me just about everything I have to know about you.

    If everyone in the world could all of a sudden recognize bad arguments and logical fallacies religion would disappear in the twinkling of an eye. I feel sorry for anyone who has fallen for these absurd theistic arguments.

    Reply
    • Terry L says:

      If God could have always existed so could have matter and energy.

      Category error. Matter and energy are a part of this universe. God exists outside of this universe.

      And since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed scientists assume mass-energy has alwas [sic] existed in one form or another.

      No, they don’t. The big bang theory directly refutes this, and is still the accepted theory of the origin of the universe. And, I’ll point out that, even if your assertion were true, then by your own admission, it’s based on an assumption!

      We have no evidence independent of the Bible that any of the events that supposedly fulfilled prophecies actually took place.

      Actually, you’re wrong about this also.

      The Bible clearly mentions Israel as a nation in prophecies related to the end-times. For centuries, Israel existed only as a people, not as a nation. Their return to statehood in 1948 sets the stage for these prophecies to be fulfilled. So pick up a map… there’s your extra-biblical evidence.

      Eye witness accounts that exist only in the Bible prove nothing.

      Why? Do you assume that because one believes in what they write that they must be a liar? This would include your own writings, my friend!

      If you visit a website ran by Richard Dawkins, do you assume that, as an atheist he must be biased, and then discount anything he says about the non-existence of God?

      If not, why would you apply a different standard to the Bible?

      Christians would never accept religious experiences from adherents of other religions as proof that their religion is true. But they expect us to accept their personal religious experiences as evidence that their religion is true.

      The article is not about proving the truth of Christianity, but showing evidence for (or against) the existence of God. By equating this with proof for Christianity, you’ve set up a straw-man argument.

      No, I would not accept the religious experience of a Voodoo practitioner as evidence that their religion is true; but I do consider it evidence that the supernatural exists. Proving existence is the easy part; proving truth requires much more evidence.

      Prove the universe had a beginning and has not always existed in one form or another. Prove there was a point in the past where nothing existed.

      This has already been done by men much more educated than I in the appropriate scientific fields (and they’re atheists, even); furthermore, I’ve already referred you to their arguments. You never responded.

      But I don’t want to NOT answer your question, but I’ll do so by asking a counter-question: Tell me why, if matter and energy has existed forever, did we not run out of energy an eternity ago?

      The fine tuning argument says that Earth, three fourths of which is covered with water was created especially for man, who has no gills.

      So you’re saying that the ONLY reason for the Earth to have so much water must be to serve as a habitat for life forms with gills?? Really??

      If you had ever picked up a science book in your adult life, you may have learned that life arose naturally to bridge the gap between the cold of space and the heat of the sun.

      What? What on earth does that even mean??

      Furthermore, who decided that the “cold of space” and the “heat of the sun” needed this alleged bridge? Wouldn’t that require a designer? or at least a “bridger”?

      Creationists love to focus on the one question scientists cannot answer.

      So there’s only one question that scientists cannot answer? In that case, shut down the science departments in all of the schools… there’s nothing more to learn!

      The arguments you have presented are the worst arguments in the history of bad arguments as I have clearly demonstrated. The fact that you actually fell for these bad arguments and then even worse try to foist them on other people tells me just about everything I have to know about you.

      Robert, why does every one of your posts seem to include an angry, ad hominem attack on someone else? Are you really so bitter?

      And continuing to refer to the arguments of others as “logical fallacies”, and “the worst arguments in the history of bad arguments” doesn’t make them so; nor does it strengthen your own arguments.

      In any case, I’ve responded to almost every one of your counter-arguments. I’m inviting you to respond to the points I’ve made. If you understand these arguments so clearly, then surely you can point out where I’m wrong. And if I AM wrong, then I want to know why.

      Reply
    • Thinker says:

      “Historical evidence for the resurrection

      > This is simply ridiculous. There is no evidence that Jesus Christ even existed let alone that he resurrected. What is this evidence? Eye witness accounts that exist only in the Bible prove nothing. Using them is like trying to prove Superman exists using the testimonies of Lois Lane, Jimmy Olson and Perry White.”

      So Robert, did you ever post on the strangenotions web site I mentioned in the other thread on this topic? Part 2 of the Evidence for Jesus post is now up, and the author (a trained historian) is actively responding to comments? Have you posted there yet? You and he are obviously on opposite sides of this view, but he seems to be holding his own. Given how strongly you feel about Jesus never existing, I think it would be informative to see you present your information up against him and the rest of the folks on that site (which contains both atheists and believers).

      Reply
  5. Robert says:

    What’s really funny about all this is the Christians claiming science cannot prove or disprove God and then the Bible believers try to use science to prove God exists. Another case of wanting the cake and eating it too. In other words just more hypocrisy from the people best known by their hypocrisy.

    Reply
    • theologymattrz says:

      *Bible believers try to use science to prove God exists*-Robert:
      Science is being used as evidence in the premise of an argument to show that God exists as the best explanation for the evidence rather than the denial of Gods existence. Thats different than using science as a method for proving God. The scientific method is not applicable to God, but we can use facts from physics, etc. to show that naturalistic explanations for the origin and initial conditions of existence are implausible.

      Reply
  6. Robert says:

    By the way the fine-tuning argument is self-defeating. God could have created us to live in a vacuum if he is all=powerful. This would have made a lot more sense since most of the universe is a vacuum. Why would God have to make things just so to support life? This means God is tossed about by circumstance just like the rest of us. So why call him God? Again, only a person scared completely out of their mind by the fear of hell could ever fall for such a ridiculous and weak argument.

    Reply
    • Terry L says:

      >>Why would God have to make things just so to support life?

      Who said he had to do so?

      You could live in your car, or in a tent if you wanted. You don’t, because you choose not to do so. It would be silly of me to say, “Why doesn’t Robert live in his car? It would be much cheaper, and it would eliminate all of the upkeep chores associated with homeownership! I know… Robert must not own a car!”

      Your statement assumes that because God didn’t do something the way you would do it, that He must not exist. I doubt seriously that I crafted this post the way you would have, even if you and I agreed on the question of God’s existence. That hardly means that I do not exist!

      Reply
  7. Robert says:

    Why would God have to make things just so to support life?
    Who said he had to do so?

    > The fine-tuning hoaxers say that things had to be just so to support life. So you buy into arguments you don’t even understand or know what they claim. I’d say that’s par for the course for a Bible believer. I could not pay for this kind of entertainment!

    Reply
    • Allen Hainline says:

      I’m not sure how you might know that I don’t know what they claim since I haven’t gotten to that topic yet in my blog – only mentioned that it is coming. Even skeptics like Hitchens and Dawkins thought fine-tuning is worth talking about and that “it’s not trivial.” If you want to know the flavor of fine-tuning argument I’ll be defending, check out these resources:

      http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8109
      http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~luke/blog/
      http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647

      Cosmologist Luke Barnes is an excellent resource on this topic. He was invited to speak at last year’s Philosophy of Cosmology conference at UC Santa Cruz. Barnes critiques people from all backgrounds when they get the physics wrong and is most interested in the data and not arguing for a particular interpretation. He’s much more philosophically astute than most physicists and has some useful philosophical comments as well.

      I’ll wait to respond to any further comments on fine-tuning until I’ve first blogged on it here.

      Reply
      • Terry L says:

        Allen, I think his comment was directed at me!

        Ironically, Robert appears to have no idea what theists mean by the concept he refers to as “things had to be just so to support life.”

        Robert, let me explain…

        Your interpretation of this concept assumes that God was forced by some external force to create the universe as he did. He was forced to set the gravitational constant just as he did, otherwise life could not exist. This isn’t the idea at all.

        What is true is that the balance of the universe’s natural constants is set on a knife-edge, such that if any one value were tweaked the slightest bit, then our universe would not support life. God could have potentially chosen any number of values that would balance, or he potentially could have created an additional force (similar to gravity) in an alternative universe to bring that universe into balance. He chose, for reasons of his own, to establish our universe with the constant values we see.

        What is also unmistakable is that you are more likely to get struck by lightning after being hit by a train while going to cash in your winning lottery ticket than these constants are to balance themselves with no intelligent force. Science has found no reason why gravity should be just as strong as it is. Nor has it found a reason why the weak and strong molecular forces are as they are.

        So yes, the universe’s fine-tuning is set “just so”… just as it needs to be so that you and I can sit at our computers and discuss whether someone designed the universe with us in mind.

        Beyond that, I’ll wait for Allen’s post.

        By the way Robert, I’m still waiting for your response to my rebuttal of your post above.

        Reply
    • Terry L says:

      Your ad hominem attacks are really getting tedious.

      You misunderstand my question. I actually agree with you that God could have designed us to live in a vacuum had he chosen to do so.

      Your error is here: “Why would God have to make things just so to support life? This means God is tossed about by circumstance just like the rest of us. ”

      You just said (correctly) that he didn’t have to do so. But then you incorrectly state that because God chooses to do something, that he must have been forced (or as you put it, “tossed about by circumstance” to do what he chose.

      You have given no evidence at all to show that God had to create the universe in the manner in which he did. Until you can show that God had no choice to do otherwise, then your argument fails.

      Reply
  8. Jason says:

    Science cannot disprove the concept of God as it is an untestable hypothesis. God supposedly exists outside the constraints of the physical universe and thus he cannot be judged by a system bound by said constraints.

    However, when religious individuals make this argument what they really mean is that their specific idea of God cannot be disproven. This is a very different matter. Once you start putting God in a box, giving him certain attributes and making certain claims about his actions within the physical universe, then we can attempt to investigate these claims. If you say these things must be true about God for him to exist, and we can show they are not, then this presents a problem.

    Using christianity as the example we can see how this works. The Bible, the supposedly inspired word of God, says that God destroyed nearly all life with a great flood sometime within the last 10,000 years (most cheistians mantain it was much more recent, but I’m using a very broad timeframe so as to avoid objections). We know, for a multitude of scientific reasons, that this never happened. We can prove using biology, genetics, geography, meterology, archaeology, etc. that it is simply untrue. Some christians call it allegory, but most maintain it did happen. Jesus himself references it in the gospels, and Jesus could not lie according to christianity. This means that, for the sowcific idea of Yahweh to be the one true God, something had to have occurred which we know did not. This is a dilemma.

    Another example is the theological claim that God is omnipotent while humans simultaneously possess free will. This is a paradox humans have recognized for thousands of years, and a big reason why the Greeks and Romans did not impart omnipotence onto their deities. They understood the implications of omnipotence. If God knows all things, and God can never be wrong, we have only the illusion of free will. Free will is impossible if even one omnipotent being exists. If you say God gives us free will, but is also omnipotent, then you have constructed an idea of God which cannot exist in reality.

    There are numerous other examples, and this applies to all religions so I dont want to portray the idea that Im picking on christianity. In summary, God may very well exist and you are correct in saying he cannot be disproven by science. Science, and many other disciplines, can however provide evidence against specific ideas and claims about God. I definitely believe there is something out there beyond this small existence, but there are far too many holes in the various religions for me to take their claims seriously.

    Reply
    • Allen Hainline says:

      If you want to examine some Christian responses to your claims about the flood, you should check out reasons.org.

      > If God knows all things, and God can never be wrong, we have only the illusion of free will. Free will is impossible if even one omnipotent being exists.

      I disagree. Why couldn’t an all-powerful being choose to allow creatures to exercise free will? And God’s omniscience doesn’t preclude free will since knowing something and causing it are 2 different categories. It’s naturalism not theism that precludes free will since if everything is governed solely by the laws of physics there is no room for free will. Things happen solely in accord with mathematical equations according to most versions of naturalism. (As Rosenberg or others would say the laws of physics are causally closed.)

      God is so powerful and free that He might choose to create free will creatures, which is a key part of being made in the image of God. Your definition of omnipotence is ironically placing a limit on God which isn’t logically imposed. Note that I’m not saying that an omnipotent being couldn’t override our free will if He wanted to but rather that he is free to choose not to override our free will if He wants to. Most entities in the universe don’t have libertarian free will but I thank God that we do – it’s a much richer life to be able to make at least some choices.

      Reply
      • toby says:

        How does this reflect on his perfection? How does a perfect being create imperfection? Not only that, he/she/it knowingly does it. You have to provide a valid argument how free will can be given, allowing imperfection, by a being that’s perfect.

        Reply
  9. Sargam says:

    I just have one question to ask:
    Why was god so choosy to make earth the only planet to have life on, when he built the universe? I mean he could have provided Neptune the opportunity to have life. Science proves this that earth has suitable conditions for life and it does provide observable evidence for beginning of life (formation of building blocks of life – amino acids). I am curious to know how would Bible answer my question?

    Reply
    • Allen Hainline says:

      Thanks for the question Sargam. No one on earth really knows for sure whether or not there is life on other planets in the universe. Just as science hasn’t answered this question so also I don’t believe that there are any indications from the Bible. The Bible was primarily written to teach us about God and not answer every possible question. Why should we expect God to tell us whether or not there is life say in distant galaxies?

      It’s true that God could have made Neptune to be life-permitting or placed life there and we’re simply not in a position to know all possible reasons why God has done everything He has done. Thankfully though he has left us evidence of His creation of the universe and fine-tuning of the laws, constants and initial conditions to support life. Since we’ve discovered that random choices of constants and initial conditions would in nearly all cases of not resulted in a life-permitting universe, I think this constitutes some evidence for design and for God. I encourage you to read the other blogs in my series if you haven’t already done so as I attempt to make this case.

      Reply
      • sargam says:

        I am happy to read your reply. Isn’t it so contradicting that the God is considered to be an intelligent designer but then there was a need of evolution. He did not built the most perfect Earth – the dinosaurs had to die, the big land mass on earth had to break up into pieces forming what we call today as ‘Countries, Islands, etc’ and many more instances of evolution and improvement in life.
        Also, one more question – If god exists then he should be universal, right? As science is universal – no matter where ever you travel on earth you would have ths same laws working. Every culture states as there own God to be the only one to have built the Earth and at different times. If somthing exists then should not it be the same everywhere? this kind of proves that God is just a construction of human mind.Let me be more clear, In my culture, I hear priests saying this all the time – If you kill a person then you will go to hell! So people start to fear God and hence priests take an advantage of this formulate all of sorts of rubbish theories to prove that some sort of god does exist. And many people do believe that god is just a human construction.

        I must admit, I have not read Bible and I belong to different culture but so far what i read about the Bible is that God said – ‘ Let there be light, God said Let their be life, etc’ It is so unsettling to believe that the earth was built like a Harry Porter Magic movie. But he is considered as intelligent designer.
        Well it’s true that no one can answer on God’s behalf that why didnt he build the cars or stuff for convience of humans? And I guess this is a big mystery which continues aithesim!
        Thanks for your reply!

        Reply
        • sargam says:

          PS. Please excuse me for my English and stupid sentence structure! It certainly is not my first language.
          Thank you

          Reply
          • Allen Hainline says:

            Hey no need to apologize for your English – I’m sure it’s much better than my abilities in your native language!

            As to the Genesis account, I don’t think we should expect a detailed scientific account since this was originally written to a pre-scientific audience 3000+ years ago. Nevertheless I think actually it is quite interesting that the first thing mentioned is light since the modern understanding of the physics of the early universe was that in fact it was so hot that basically all the energy was in the form of radiation (photons – i.e. light). The earth was not built like a Harry Potter Magic movie – the Genesis account calls for God creating the heavens (universe) and earth but I see no reason to think he didn’t use some processes like gravity to coalesce the matter – hence the phrase in Genesis about the earth once being without form and void. Also, “darkness is said to be on the face of the deep [i.e. ocean\.” Indeed early earth was primarily a water world and the atmosphere would not have been transparent until later. The Hebrew word Yom also has a definition of an indefinite time period besides its use as a 24-hour time period so I don’t think that the text demands a young earth. For one possible way of reconciling Genesis with modern science you might examine Hugh Ross’s book entitled Navigating Genesis. (although there are also other interpretations of the text worth considering that are also not at odds with science.)

            I don’t think one can say God is a failed intelligent designer for building in some adaptability to biological species (although I personally am skeptical that solely naturalistic evolution could account fully for all biological species). Suppose there were never any new species and life on earth was very static, wouldn’t this almost boring and I could see skeptics complaining of God’s lack of imagination or creativity. I think one has to be careful not to make too many assumptions about what God would or wouldn’t do. We have overwhelming strong evidence for creation of the universe and fine-tuning and I encourage you to study that evidence with an open mind.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] the only way we can know anything. This overly skeptical view is called scientism, and is flawed. (Here is an article on scientism and its limits. These guys from Cross Examined do a good job. There is also a great […]

  2. […] could know anything I would point out how that overly skeptical view, called scientism, is flawed. (Here is an article on that in the cross examined […]

  3. […] the truth about origins without worrying about conventions concerning how to define science. As I previously blogged, science is not the only source of […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *