Science Supports Our Side

Another source of evangelical aversion to reason is found in history. Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. The academic world in large measure embraced the theory advanced in this book as proof that they no longer needed God to explain origins. In other words, they concluded that the scientific method led inescapably to a worldview that omits God.

At the time, the church was not prepared to meet this challenge rationally. In response, most of the mainline denominations capitulated to the onslaught of academia, adopting evolutionary conclusions and seeking to develop a theology that would fit into this predominantly atheistic framework.

Churches more committed to Scripture made their defense by asserting that their beliefs were rooted in faith and not reason. This perspective led to the perception of a dichotomy between faith and reason in which faith was viewed as leading to God and reason to atheism. Consequently, reason and science were viewed as the enemies of Christianity, weapons being used to disprove it.

This perspective for the most part stood until 1961 when John C Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M Morris published The Genesis Flood. In that book Whitcomb and Morris made a serious scientific case for the validity of the biblical record. In addition, Dr. Morris organized the Institute of Creation Research, an organization designed to validate Scripture from a scientific perspective, and mobilized a cadre of scientists skilled making this case. Since then, similar efforts have followed. As a result, for the first time since the publication of On the Origin of Species a segment of the evangelical community stopped viewing science as the enemy of biblical faith and began viewing it as an ally.

In the late 1980s the inception of the Intelligent Design movement provided further support for a creationist perspective. This movement is not theologically oriented but makes the case that the complexity of natural phenomena is far too great to result from evolutionary mechanisms.

The more scientists learn about nature, the more difficult it becomes to assign its intricacies to a time plus chance theory, regardless of how much time and how many chances one envisions. For example, the Human Genome Project, initiated in 1990 and completed in 2003 had among its goals to identify the approximately 20,500 genes in the human DNA and to determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs in that molecule. Imagine a mechanism that complex being produced by a series of biological accidents. How many errors would it take on a Chevy assembly line to produce a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a mechanism dramatically simpler than one DNA molecule?

Evolutionists seek to exclude the Intelligent Design movement from the scientific debate by asserting that it is essentially religious in nature.

It is easy to expose the self-serving strategy of this argument. It asserts that if an analysis of the data leads to the conclusion that God does not exist, then the analysis is scientific. If the analysis demonstrates that nature reflect intelligent design, then the analysis is not scientific but religious. In other words, these evolutionists are asserting that the use of a scientific method does not make an endeavor scientific, but rather the conclusions that are reached. True science, they assert, would never lead to God but must only lead to a universe devoid of God.

This logic leads us to ask, what if the universe actually was created by God? In that case true science would necessarily lead to that conclusion.

By excluding that possibility, these evolutionists expose the religious nature of their position. Insisting that God does not exist constitutes a theological statement.

The panic displayed by evolutionists in blocking the entrée of Intelligent Design into academic institutions of all levels and the spurious arguments they employ in banning it further confirms the religious nature of evolution, a faith that must be protected from facts that expose its flaws. These defensive attitudes and actions reveal that reason supports our side and not theirs.

Tomorrow I plan to demonstrate that even systems vastly less complex than the human DNA molecule cannot plausibly be viewed as the product of time plus chance.

Have a comment?