Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists
Today’s Christian no longer has to try to maintain only by faith their belief in the origin of the universe. The atheist now does.
by Lillian Kwon, Christian Today US Correspondent
Posted: Monday, November 20, 2006, 19:34 (GMT)
MCLEAN, Va., USA – Today’s Christian no longer has to try to maintain only by faith their belief in the origin of the universe. The atheist now does.
Former atheist and American award-winning Christian author Lee Strobel premiered his one-hour documentary "The Case for a Creator" to hundreds of Christians at an apologetics conference in the US on Friday. The aftermath of the movie: Christians felt they actually learned something.
"We are actually living now at a time of tremendous intellectual renaissance of Christianity," said philosopher and author Dr. William Lane Craig.
Craig's comment came after fellow philosopher J.P. Moreland told conference participants that the church has become anti-intellectual.
"We've got to start using cognitive language and not just faith language," Moreland exhorted.
Over the last several decades, Christians have begun to emerge back into the intellectual public square. This is primarily occurring in the field of philosophy, New Testament studies with regard to the historical Jesus and the gospels, and it is now beginning to occur in the physical sciences as manifested in the Intelligent Design movement, Craig explained.
Presenting clear scientific evidence that Christians had largely been without, Strobel's "Case for a Creator" revealed a complex universe that many scientists could now only explain with the existence of some kind of intelligence.
Biochemist Michael Behe demonstrated how bacterial flagellum are molecular machines that could only function with all its parts present simultaneously, much like a mouse trap. If one part is missing, it would not function and would thus have no reason to exist. Evolution would not preserve it.
Such evidence as Behe's was presented in other scientific fields including cosmology, physics and astronomy in the documentary.
"I believe that by doing science, we find God," said Strobel.
Philosopher Jay Richards of Acton Institute concluded from his findings that the universe was designed for discovery. And with each discovery, the Darwinian theory of evolution is expected to go down as "a huge mistake in history," Richards said.
One participant, Robert Wedan, 53, praised the documentary, saying that it gave him stronger grounds to defend Creation. "It's movies like [‘Case for a Creator’] that I think will make it a lot easier to address those issues."
"Today, science is pointing more powerfully to a creator than any other time," said Strobel. "The most logical and rational step is to put my faith in the Creator that science tells me exists."
Now, Christians can stand confidently within biblical truth knowing that it's in line with astrophysics and cosmology, said Strobel, quoting a cosmology expert. "It is now the atheist who has to maintain by faith, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that the universe did not have a beginning."
Copyright © 2006 Christian Today. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Have your say on this article
The comments below are readers' personal opinions and are in no way intended to reflect the editorial opinion of Christian Today.
Added: Tuesday, November 28, 2006, 21:37 (GMT)
Lee Strobel and the author of this article demonstrate an ignorance or, worse yet, a disregard of the scientific method. To understand the scientific method is to understand why ID is not a player in the scientific arena.
The author makes two statements in his title that he does not back up with evidence. He has yet to explain how science supports the existence of a miracle working son of a god over the contention that a god does not exist. Where is the evidence that a god/man who rose from the dead is more likely than a natural explanation for life and the universe? He can have these opinions. He cannot say they are scientific because they are not.
Now, to distort information in error is one thing. To purposely misrepresent the truth is unethical and, dare I say, unChristian. Where the heck does Strobel get the information that atheists do not believe in a beginning of the universe? That is ludicrous, prejudiced, and untrue. Unlike the religious, the secular understand that extraordinary claims require extraordianry evidence. Behe and Strobel lack this evidence. Most atheists, acknowledge a beginning of some sort.
Where is Michael Behe's evidence that flagellum were wished into existence by Nyx, the great black bird? Or was it Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu? Or was it Brahma. Or was it a fuzzy yellow spider? Or should we suspect that both men believe it is the Judeo-Christian god Yahweh? And where is the evidence that Yahweh is a more likely candidate than any of the others? Where is his evidence of the intelligent designer? A rudimentary application of Occam's Razor does not reveal a designer. That a creator is not in evidence is the critical flaw in this upgraded "watchmaker" philosophy (not science). The answer is that no, read this clearly, absolutely no evidence of any of these mythological creators exists. Prima facie evidence is good law or good phillsophy. It is horrible science.
Intelligent Design is a perfect example of what science is not. It's surrendering the search for truth. It says, "I don't know the answer, so lets stop looking and just say that someone like Poseidon, or Odin, or Xenu poofed it into existence."
How is the word of a philosopher (Jay Richards), absent of any proof, a credible voice for science? The Acton Institute he is affiliated with does not even pretend to be a scientific organization. It is a religious one. Am I seeing a pattern?
If Strobel wants to play in the scientific arena, he needs to come to it with scientific proof that supports the existence of a creator. Until the proof materialises, we need to keep his "belief" out of classrooms. If you want play with the big boys, Mr. Strobel, you'll need more than invisible superghost friends. Let's start with evidence.
Kevin Kinnerk, Tinley Park, Illinois, USA
Added: Tuesday, November 28, 2006, 15:02 (GMT)
Others have already pointed out the false argument of irreducible complexity that continues to be repeated. This is like the bellman in Lewis Carroll's Hunting of the Snark, who proclaims something three times in a row and then says, "What i tell you three times is true."
Looking at the history of science shows that for centuries, scientists were almost all religious people who fully expected the scientific process to confirm the most important Christian dogma, particularly the idea that the universe was created. Newton, even while showing that the path of all the planets around the sun conforms to a precise mathematical pattern, could not see any reason to believe the planets would move in this orderly way and assumed that it was merely the creator's will that they do so that "caused" the motion. Einstein later produced a theory that explains this orbital behaviour.
The same was true of geologists and biologists, who started out expecting to find evidence of the great flood. They expected to find that the earth was at most six thousand years old, that humans were created with a special status, that our earth was the center of the universe and of God's attention.
Over time, however, more and more evidence came in which could be explained by simple application of physical laws, including stellar and planetary formation, continental drift, and (yes) evolution of the species. A certain type of religious person has consistently maintained that whatever science has explained to this point, it cannot explain (fill in the blank). First life itself was thought to defy scientific analysis, but then along came biochemistry. But humans are definitely distinct from other animals; but then we find more and more ways in which our biology and even our behaviour is like those of other primates, whales, dolphins, even elephants. So it goes.
Biological evolution explains a mountain of evidence and so those who want to cling to the idea that we are the special creations of God, retreat and persist in looking for ways that science somehow fails as a way of demonstrating the need for faith.
They fail to consider that even if the universe is the result of an intelligent designer (alias God), there is no inherent reason why we should not expect God to utilize a process of evolution to create the diversity of species and even intelligent life forms such as ourselves.
They also fail to admit that this creator would prefer people believe in itself based on reason and not on faith. If we accept that God could do whatever God wants, we cannot rule out anything, including evolution. So that is an explanation that explains nothing because it predicts nothing.
Lanny Buettner, Richmond Virginia USA
Added: Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 19:01 (GMT)
It disturbs me greatly that people like Michael Behe persist in telling lies for God. These people know full well that the bacterial flagellum (to pick the most notorious example) is not evidence of irreducable complexity yet they persist in using it to deceive the credulous.
When Jesus told us to "love God... with all our minds" He meant we have to deal with reality as it is, not to pretend it is otherwise simply because it doesn't fit our preconceptions. The "first and greatest commandment" obliges us to approach the world honestly and openly. Blatantly ignoring powerful contrary evidence, as the Michael Behes of this world are doing, is a form of closing one's mind and thus is a violation of Jesus's commandment. This is not a case of appropriate skepticism. They are deliberately saying things they know are untrue - in other words, they are bearing false witness. This is wrong in and of itself, let alone the damage to the Church's credibility it causes.
If this sort of pseudo-science along with philosophical strawmen like Lee Strobel's absurd proposition that atheists per se do not believe the universe had a beginning represents Christianity's reemergence "into the intellectual public square" then may God help us all, for the real intellectuals will eat us alive.
David Potoroo, Melbourne, Australia
Added: Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 14:27 (GMT)
As a firm scientist for many years, I cannot believe one can look at the universe without believing in the case for God. I wish people would stop looking at the pieces of the pie, but at the whole big picture - the amazing miracle of creation that we live in is something that amazes me each and every day!
Lee Jones, Birmingham
Added: Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 9:10 (GMT)
I would be happy to have evolutionary theory seriously challenged but not by Michael Behe suggesting that the bacterial flagellum is evidence of irreducible complexity [it isn't, and the scientific paper was published at least 3 years ago]. Using this kind of sound-grab is at least as stupid as the oft-repeated statement that 'evolution is just a theory', as though 'theory' = 'wild-assed guess'. If we are to seriously challenge scientific dogma, let's not make ourselves look ridiculous in the process
Atom Egoyan, Yerevan, Armenia
Added: Monday, November 20, 2006, 20:54 (GMT)
Funny, Strobel's and Behe's "theories" about irreducible complexity, including the bacterial flagellum, have already been debunked by people like Dennet, Dawkins, Myers, et cetera, though the same arguments keep popping up. And more importantly: a philosophical argument does not equate to scientific evidence.
Rienk, NOLA, USA
