1

The Rise & Fall

of

Naturalism

“Is God Dead?”

2

References

Patrick Glynn, “God, The Evidence”, (1997)

Gerald L Schroeder, “The Science of God” (1997)

Newsweek magazine, July 27, 1998, “Science finds God”

Time magazine, December 4, 1995, “Evolution’s Big Bang”

Various articles from the Internet and CD-ROM encyclopaedias

3

An Ancient Harmony Disrupted

Worldviews accommodate divine agency

Allows for natural and intelligent causes

Harmony between science and faith

Then came Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and the clash in worldviews with the Catholic Church…

4

Birth of Modern Science

Copernican worldview: Man is not the centre of the cosmos, contrary to the Catholic Church’s worldview

(Catholic’s worldview actually based on Ptolemy’s philosophy, not on Scriptures.)

Faith contradicts realityCatholic Church eventually discredited in its

persecution of Galileo Pope John Paul II apologised for this unfortunate event in

1992

5

Science vs Faith

Gradual separation of science and faith

Eventual exclusion of divine agency, which cannot be seen or empirically tested

Accepts only natural causes/explanations

Naturalism

6

Methodical Materialism

Only natural explanations accepted

If it cannot be empirically tested, it is not science

7

A boost from Darwin

Then came Darwin It was not necessary to believe in the existence of God to explain the origin of life.

Human life came about essentially by accident, from mechanistic forces working randomly over eons and eons

Man - “a curious accident in a backwater”, a by-product of the “random universe” (Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science, 1935)

8

Rise of the Secular Worldview

Thus began decline of religious worldviews and rise of secular ones

Age of Enlightenment

Age of Reason

Modernism

Atheism

9

Atheism Ascendant

Science had “long before dissolved the Christian worldview in nitric acid” (Ludwig Feuerbach, 1850)

J Hillis Miller echoed Nietzsche in 1963 when he spoke of the “disappearance of God”

10

Empty Boast

Science was able to provide more and more explanations of how things worked - “Nothing left for a Creator to do” (Carl Sagan)

Just how real is this boast?

11

From Harmony to Conflict

Science, by definition, is based on naturalistic and mechanistic principles

But it should be limited to the natural realm

Whether there is Divine Agency or not is a premise that cannot be tested by science, as scientists rightly recognise – it is a matter of faith, and for faith

If science is unable to prove the existence of God, it has no business to deny it either

12

Unsolved

Mysteries of

Modern

Science

13

Four centuries later…

Science not any closer to important questions after centuries of search

Origins of the universe

Origins of life

Basic questions like gravity

Or even what is matter made up of?

Instead, it opened up even more questions.

14

Life by Accident?

1953 laboratory experiment created amino acids by “random” chemical reactions

Led George Wald, Nobel prize winner in biology and Harvard professor, to write an article in 1954 for Scientific American stating that given enough time, life can begin by chance

15

Wald’s Article (1954)

“... since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once ... The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. ... Time is in fact the hero of the plot. Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles” (Wald, G., "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 2, August 1954, pp.47-48)

16

Autobiogenesis

Wald reinforced belief in a godless, “random” universe

“Nothing left for God to do”

But his basic premise is so severely flawed

17

Life cannot come by accident

In 1979, Scientific American reprinted Wald’s article, with a retraction to deny that life can possible start by chance Very serious to retract an article by a Nobel prize winner in such

a manner, but significance of Wald’s statement warrants this unusual action

Consequence of computation by Harold Morowitz that time required for life to begin by chance would be more than the age of the universe!

18

Scientific American Retraction

“Although stimulating, this article probably represents one of the very few times in his professional life when George Wald has been wrong. Examine his main thesis and see. Can we really form a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds? Harold Morowitz, in his book “Energy Flow and Biology,” computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the Universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force. In short, life could not have started by chance.”

19

Life cannot come by accident

Amazingly, no one wrote in to defend Wald’s original article!

Since 1979, most reputable journals no longer accept articles supporting spontaneous generation

More significantly, research to determine how life begin is currently under-supported.

If not by chance, then what is the most likely alternative?

20

Stubborn Denial

“I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. One only has to contemplate the magnitude of the task - life from non-life - to concede that spontaneous generation of a living organism is IMPOSSIBLE. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” (George Wald)

21

What’s the Matter?

http://particleadventure.org

22

Uncertainties, Uncertainties

You cannot be sure where things really are (Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty)

Is light wave energy or a solid? Is an atom a solid or a wave? (Wave/Particle Duality)

So what or who controls how matter behaves?

23

Uncertainty of Life

Order in the universe prevails because of the laws of nature

Even in chaos as seen in fractals

But order and stability are susceptible to slight disturbances; hence, existence is precarious

The Butterfly Effect

There is also uncertainty in the cosmos - man can never be sure of tomorrow

24

A Perfect Balance

But order and chaos is in perfect balance, thus preserving the existence of the universe - and life

Who holds this balance so vital to the continued existence of this cosmos?

For more on order, chaos and uncertainties

25

Natural Disappointments

26

Nagging Questions

If spontaneous generation is false, then how did life come about?

The fossil record does not support Darwinist theories of evolution

Why a purely naturalistic (hence atheistic) cosmos should appear “designed”

Main engines of secular, atheistic worldviews stalling!

27

The Failure of Naturalism

After 350 years of scientificinvestigation and “progress”,modern science:

Unable to answer numerous fundamental questions concerning the universe

Still fail to produce satisfying answers concerning the origin of life

Too much

faith in

science!

?

28

Turning Points

The Cambrian Explosion

The Anthropic Principle

Intelligent Design

29

Darwin’s Big Bang

Dramatic step change in in the fossil record occurred at beginning of the Cambrian period

Geologists as long ago as William Buckland (1784-1856) realised this

Darwinists have for long time been stumped by this Cambrian explosion

Still no answer

30

The Cambrian Explosion

The Theory – continuous evolution over time from single source

The Data – sudden appearance all over – and not from single source

31

The Anthropic Principle

1973 at the International Astronomical Union

Occasion: the commemoration of the 500th birthday of Copernicus

In attendance: world’s most prominent astronomers and physicists including Stephen Hawking

Presentation of paper by Brendan Carter, a well-known astrophysicist and cosmologist from Cambridge University

32

The Anthropic Principle

Mysterious finely tuned fundamental constants

Relationships among unrelated areas

Unexplained “coincidences” favouring creation of universe, life – and man (hence, the term “anthropic”)

Evidence of “design”?

Paper: “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology”

33

Intelligent Design

Presents a scientific approach to support the old teleological argument

ID movement took off in late 1980’s

Basic Premise: If there is “Intelligent Design” in this cosmos, then it is scientifically detectable.

If there is Intelligent Design, then there is an Intelligent Designer – but stops short of identifying who this is

34

ID Criteria

Irreducibly Complex

“A single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” [Michael Behe]

Specified Complexity

Anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring. [William Dembski]

35

The ID Filter

Contingent?

Complex?

Specified?

Intelligent Design

Necessity

Chance

Constrained Chance

Start

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

A testable method – hence “scientific”

36

Converted

Antony Flew – one of world’s leading philosophers, and one of the most renowned atheists of the past half century

Abandoned naturalism, and atheism, as a result of Intelligent Design

Twilight of Atheism

37

The “Scientific” Reactions

38

Paradigms

“Science starts, not from large assumptions, but from particular facts discovered by observation or experiment.” (Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science, 1935)

But science not always objective

Normal science or the work of reason is always guided by some larger insight or belief - what Thomas Kuhn called a “paradigm”

39

Paradigms

Scientific research and thought defined by “paradigms” or conceptual worldviews - (Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962)

Paradigms influence

the experiments conducted

types of questions asked

the problems that are considered important

a priori prejudices

40

Paradigm Shifts

Need radical change in fundamental concepts, i.e. discarding of old paradigms, to trigger new approach to research, new theories and experimentation, search for new evidences

Hence, Kuhn’s observed that advances in science not made through gradual progress but by revolutionary change

41

“Scientific” Disenchantment

Optimism in last decade of finding solutions now being replaced by pessimism

“As we make progress understanding the expanding universe the problem itself expands, so that the solution always seems to recede from us.” (Steven Weinberg, 1977 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, 1997)

The more the universe has become comprehensible through cosmology, the more it becomes pointless (Weinberg)

42

Denial a first reactionWhen confronted with anomalous evidence that fails to

fit the prevailing “paradigm”, scientists deny the evidence or explain it away

Examples Newtonian mechanics displaced by Einstein’s

theory of relativity

Einstein’s own struggle to reconcile his discovery of relativity with quantum mechanics (resolved only in the 1980’s, long after his death)

43

Resistance to change

Hence many scientists still reject the Anthropic Principle or Intelligent Design

Many still cling on to spontaneous generation of life

Many still insist that the theologians are wrong

Anything but acknowledge God - the resistance to paradigm shift!

44

Attempts to deny the “Big Bang” (coined in 1948 by George Gamow)

“So long as the universe has a beginning, we could suppose it had a Creator.”

(Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time)

Hence, Hawking invented his controversial “no boundary” theory (1981) suggesting the universe has no beginning Even if theory finds support, it still does not explain why the

physical laws behave as they are

A return to old hypothesis

45

From Modern Science to Sci-Fi

Search for a unified theory, a “theory of everything” to explain the physical constants

Counter-hypotheses to retain the atheistic paradigm All speculative, unobservable, therefore unverifiable by

scientific methods

For many scientists, science fiction hypotheses preferable to supernatural design

46

“Science Fiction” Reaction

There exist billions of parallel universes - all godless and random Hence the “coincidences” to produce life in at least one

of these, are not so unlikely

Also “baby universes” (size = 10-25 cm) and “bubble universes”

Above based on quantum mechanics

One definition is that these other universes cannot be observed

47

More Science Fiction

The Gaia (gila?) Theory (James Lovelock, 1990)

Earth is in reality a single living organism (a gaia) within the galaxy, also a living organism, and so is the universe

Purpose of the universe is to produce other universes (baby universes) via black holes

48

Science or Blind Faith?

None of these can be observed to be verified scientifically!

Why are theories like the “multi-verse” science, but not “Intelligent Design”?

Who defines what is or isn’t “science”?

Is this science or blind faith?

Goal is to keep alive the concept ofa cosmology without the divine

49

Science or Blind Faith?

Scientific Dogma Reality

Matter is eternal Matter has a beginning

Matter and laws evolved

Matter and laws constant – no new laws

Trend toward order

Trend toward disorder – second law of thermodynamics

Spontaneous generation Law of biogenesis Laws of Probability state this is impossible

Continual creation and evolution

Conservation – first law of thermodynamics

Scientific dogmas blind to reality

50

Science or Blind Faith?

Scientific Dogma Reality

World history has progressed in uniformity

World catastrophe in the great flood

Organs evolved gradually

Organ always full developed – natural selection culls

Mutations can improve

Mutations always harmful

Civilisation grew gradually Archaeology and anthropology show civilisation appeared suddenly

Man is an animal Huge gap between man and animals

Naturalism Design is manifest – life complex and highly ordered

51

The Emptiness of Naturalism

52

Mechanistic & Impersonal

Not interested in “final cause” - the goal, the purpose

Emphasis is on “efficient cause”, i.e. the mechanism - how things work, how things came about

Also assumes randomness, and hence denied the existence of “first cause”

Takes humanity toward a mechanistic, impersonal and random view of the cosmos - devoid of the spiritual, the soul, of God

53

Naturalism & Nihilism

Hence

Reject concept of God as “first cause” lost roots

Lack final purpose aimless, without purpose - what is the point?

Nihilism, a belief in nothing

Nothingness cannot produce anymeaningful answers to life?

54

Naturalism & Nihilism

In neglecting the “final cause”, modern science has nowhere to go, no purpose - condemned to wander endlessly in the knowledge wilderness

In rejecting the theistic paradigm, the quest for answers to timeless questions concerning life is hopeless because there is no other answer!

55

Reduced to nothing

“You, your joys and your sorrows, your

memories and your ambitions, your sense of

personal identity and free will, are in fact no

more that the behaviour of a vast assembly of

nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

(Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis, page 3)

56

The more objective ones would join John Wheeler, once the most prominent proponent of the parallel universes hypothesis, to abandon a “sci-fi” approach because it turns “science into a kind of mysticism”

Newsweek (July 27, 1998) reported of an astronomer Allan Sandage who at 50, willed himself to accept God” after reason alone failed to provide answers: “It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence.”

“Science-sibility”

57

“Science-sibility”

“In this 20th century age of skepticism it is indeed ironic to discover that more evidence has accumulated for the existence of a transcendent Creator in this century than any time in the last 1,900 years.”

“This evidence is so powerful that numerous prominent scientists have begun to speak openly about the existence of God.”

(Mark Eastman & Chuck Missler, “The Creation beyond Time and Space”, 1996)

58

A New Breed of Scientists

Scientists who recognise the existence of God

Charles Townes (1964 Physics Nobel prize winner)

John Polkinghorne (physicist turned priest)

Fred Hoyle (astronomer)

Paul Davies (physicist)

Arthur Peacocke

Robert John Russell

59

A New Breed of Scientists

According to a 1997 study, 40% of scientists now believe in a personal God

Some are actively informing the world that the post-secular age has arrived.

60

A New Breed of Scientists

A fellowship of Christians in science

Share a common fidelity to the word of God

Committed to integrity in the practice of science

“The issue is not evolution versus creation. The issue is design versus accident.” (Owen Gingerich, A.S.A.)

61

Where to find the Answers

“Why?” (the purpose) is a far more important

question than “How?” (the mechanics)

The important answers have always been there

– “first cause”, “final cause”, purpose

Revelation & Reason