A recent article piqued my interest which has brought about much discussion between a whole host of people and me. This article, Can Science Disprove the Existence God? (sorry, the typo was in the title) by Natalie Wolchover, is essentially an interview of a theoretical physicist noting how advances in science are eliminating the evidence for design in our universe. However, I posit the question, “Do these advances really show random chance and tear away belief in God?”
Sometimes I don’t think scientists fully appreciate the complexity of the universe in which we live in. This can stem from the fact that most specialize in one area and don’t venture out too far from that specialty. Take for instance a biochemist. Many biochemists can tell you in detail each step of the clotting cascade; however, when it comes to the magnetosphere protecting Earth from the sun’s harmful solar wind, they might not be able to tell you much. The fact is that nineteenth century evolutionary thought unbeknownst to the modern day scientist has put thought of the universal processes into a box of primitiveness. Even though microbiological studies have shown the cell as much more than containers of protoplasm, subconciously, most people still think of the cell as very primitive.
In actuality, the cell is extremely complex with many different organelles which perform many different functions. The cell makes new proteins, it digests nutrients, and it contains thousands of compensatory mechanisms just within its outer shell or membrane. Involuntarily, these mechanisms keep us alive and maintain homeostasis throughout the body. Even more amazing are networks of receptors which detect small and large changes in body fluid volume, electrolyte balance, and a myriad of other variations to initiate body reactions. These receptors are mainly placed in best places to recognize the changes. Okay, an evolutionist might ask, “Didn’t nature just randomly place receptors in the body until it found the right combination?” The problem with this theory is that an organism would be hard pressed to survive without these compensatory mechanisms and receptors. In natural selection, large sample of organisms would actually have to survive to allow trial and error of what receptor placement works and doesn’t work. To me, the answer is simple: an intelligent Agent knew where to place each receptor.
Another point I see in the article and in modern academic thought is that God cannot be the answer. To these people I ask, “Why not?” A point of contention between proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) and secularists has been the fine-tuning of the universe to support life. Fine-tuning refers to the fact that physical constants (such as speed of light and gravity) are universally set at a precise level as to support life. While many ID proponents consider the obvious, that fine-tuning is evidence for design, some secularists try to explain fine-tuning as the result of multiple parallel universes. We just happen to be the lucky universe. The multiverse is not the only science fiction inspired secular theory to deny God’s creation of the universe. Directed panspermia, the idea that aliens seeded life on Earth, has been seriously considered to explain the origin of life on this planet. This, of course, opens up the can of worms about who created the aliens.
God, in His matchless wisdom, has created within this universe an elegant paradox: everything we see and study is complex yet altogether simple to understand. Instead of just accepting the obvious, many scientists have to become as complicated as possible when discussing our beginning. These same individuals view the simple answer of intelligent design by God to be a foolish enterprise. However, God has described these men and their doings in 1 Corinthians 1:27, “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.”