HAS SCIENCE DISPROVED CHRISTIANITY?

CAN A SCIENTIST BE A CHRISTIAN AND STILL KEEP HIS/HER BRAIN CELLS?

Has science disproved Christianity?

Has science disproved Christianity? You might think it has. In this scientific age how can anyone believe in a personal God who created the universe? Isn't it all just superstitious nonsense? Isn't any talk of God irrelevant to a generation that has put men on the moon?

"I saw no god nor angels whilst in orbit" Major Yuri Gagarin, first man in space.

I am a Christian who has trained as a scientist yet I am convinced that science hasn't disproved Christianity. I even think that a good scientist looking carefully at the evidence should become a Christian. Let me try to tell you why.

How much can science tell us?

There is no doubt that science has given us a great deal. We watch TVs, use videos, drive in cars, and fly in planes. If we get sick we take antibiotics, fit hip replacements or install pacemakers. It's very tempting for us to think that science must be able to provide the answer to life, the universe and everything.

"Men have become like gods ... Science offers us total mastery over our environment and over our destiny." Edmund Leach

However, we need to be clear about the limitations of science. When we come to the most important questions in life, scientists can only provide very limited answers.

Science is useful for answering the 'how?' questions, describing how things work. What science can't do is answer the 'why?' questions - it can't explain why things are as they are. Let me give you a few examples to illustrate what I mean.

Think of Isaac Newton sitting underneath the apple tree. He gets hit on the head by an apple and thinks to himself, "Aha! Gravity!". Now we may be tempted to think that he explained why the apple fell. He didn't. Scientists still can't tell us why the apple fell. Isaac Newton's great achievement was to describe how it fell. What he said was that the same mathematical formula that describes how the apple fell (the inverse square law) also describes the attraction between any lumps of matter. He described how this happens - he didn't explain why.

Take another example. Imagine that you're in a kitchen and you see a kettle boiling. You might ask the question, "Why is that kettle boiling?". A scientist could offer you an explanation. He might tell you that the gas is burning, liberating heat energy, which is being transferred to the water molecules, which are becoming excited until some of them have enough energy to escape from the others. Now, what has the scientist done? He has described how the kettle is boiling, but he hasn't explained why it's boiling. OK, now let's imagine an old lady comes in to the kitchen and says, "I can tell you why the kettle's boiling ... I put it on to make a cup of tea". That is a very different answer on a very different level. She hasn't described how the kettle is boiling but she has explained why it's boiling.

Let's take another example. Why are you breathing? A scientist could describe how you are breathing. If he hadn't given the problem much thought he might feel he was answering the why question by saying "Because your muscles are lifting your rib cage, creating a negative pressure in your chest and drawing in air." But why, I would then ask, are the muscles doing this? .... "Because a raised partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the blood circulating through your brain results in the activation of nerves which stimulate our chest muscles." Well why is that? ... "Because your cells are producing carbon dioxide." But why is that? ... "Because of the action of intracellular enzymes." But why is that?... "Because the enzymes are coded by a DNA template." And why is that? ....why? ...why? .... Do you see that we could keep asking "why?" because what the scientist is actually doing is not explaining why but describing how?

The ultimate "why?"

Eventually we will come back to the ultimate why question. "Why are you here at all? What is the meaning and purpose of life?" Do you see that scientists will never be able to provide an answer?

But isn't this the most important question we could ever ask? Of course it is interesting and valuable to find out how things work and I, for one, certainly appreciate all that science has achieved. However isn't it even more important to find out why we are here and then live out that purpose?

"What is life for? To die? To kill myself at once? No, I am afraid. To wait for death till it comes? I fear that even more. Then I must live. But what for?" Leo Tolstoy

Although scientists can't give us an answer to this important why question, a certain Jesus Christ claims that he can. Jesus said that each of us is created by God to live in a personal relationship with him. That is why we are here - because God created us to enjoy being with him.

"But hang on a minute," you may say, "why should I believe anything Jesus said 2,000 years ago? I'd rather believe modern scientists. And hasn't science done away with this whole idea of God anyway?" Well let's think about these questions.

Does God exist?

It is vitally important that we find out whether God exists. If he does and he created us for a purpose, then we will only be fulfilled as we live out that purpose. On the other hand if he doesn't exist we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to life. In other words, there is simply no answer to the ultimate "why?" question.

If there is no God, no-one who created us for a purpose, then the only thing we can say is that "life is". We are simply chance products in a chance world, and life is fundamentally meaningless.

"I was just thinking ..... that here we are, all of us, eating and drinking, to preserve our previous existence, and that there's nothing, nothing, absolutely no reason for existing." Jean-Paul Sartre

"If one puts aside the existence of God .... one has to make up one's mind what is the meaning and use of life ... Now the answer is plain, but so unpalatable that most men will not face it. There is no reason for life, and life has no meaning." Somerset Maugham

Of course the danger now is that we decide we are going to believe in God just because we can't bear the idea of him not existing.. That would be nonsense. It would effectively be committing intellectual suicide. Surely the intelligent and scientific thing to do is to investigate the evidence so that we can find out whether God is there or not.

Now it doesn't seem that we can see God but we can see ourselves. So let's start from the assumption that we exist and work out how likely it is that we could have got here if there was no God to have created us.

Who needs God when we have evolution?

Some people might say, "We don't need God. Science can tell us how we got here without him. We evolved." Well, let's investigate that possibility.

The theory of evolution is that mutations occurring by chance lead to variations in an organism's offspring. Some of these different offspring are then more able to survive and reproduce than their competitors, so they survive while others die out. It is argued that the processes of random mutation and natural selection have been repeated over many generations, gradually evolving all the life forms we see today.

Some people have suggested that the theory of evolution can be extended to provide a complete answer to the origin of all life, replacing any need for God. Before you accept this, there are two important questions you should ask. How was the first life form produced and how did it then manage to develop into all the life forms we now see?

The origin of life

Clearly it is only living, self-replicating organisms (those that can reproduce) that can evolve. So we have to ask the question - where did the first self- replicating organism come from? In other words, how did life begin?

If there is no God we have to say that this happened by chance. But, before you think that is a straightforward explanation, let's look at what would be involved.

If we decide that the first life to occur was a self-replicating cell, we have accepted that something extremely improbable happened. The probability of the spontaneous production of just the 200 enzymes necessary for such a cell has been calculated as 1 in 10^40,000. That is 1 in 10 with 40,000 noughts after it. This is a massive figure especially when compared with the largest estimate of the life of the universe (under the Big-Bang theory) which is around 10¹⁷ seconds. So then, for there to have been just one step from lifeless chemicals to the simplest form of life known, it means that an event with the probability of 1 in 10^40,000 happened in 10¹⁷ seconds.

"That is about as ridiculous and improbable as the proposition that a tornado, blowing through a junkyard, could assemble a Boeing 747." Sir Fred Hoyle

Faced with this massive improbability, scientists have suggested alternative explanations:

• That the first life was a simpler form of cell, now apparently extinct.
• That the first life used a different self-replicating system, not the DNA/RNA used by cells today.
• That this universe is not the only one there has been, but that we are in an infinite cycle of universes exploding (Big Bang), expanding, contracting, imploding (Big Plop!), and exploding again. We happen to be fortunate that life struck lucky on this cycle.
• That life arrived on earth from somewhere else (panspermia).

There is, at present, no firm evidence that any of these theories are correct but that does not mean that one of them cannot be the answer any more than the extreme improbability of a simple cell emerging by chance means that cannot have happened. What it does mean is that the atheist is taking a huge step of faith to say that life definitely began without God. Perhaps atheism is less straightforward than many think.

"Any honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." Francis Crick

The origin of species

Even once life has started there are questions we need to ask about how it developed into all the life forms we see today.

The evolutionary explanation for the development of species is that they came from one another or from common ancestors. The argument is that species A changes into species B by a series of gradual changes. Now there are some serious questions we must ask here about the sub-stages (transitional forms) that must be passed through to get from A to B.

If these transitional forms are necessary, then isn't it the case that each one of them must be able to survive (and reproduce) in competition with the previous one? Otherwise, no matter how much better B is than A, it will never appear because the transitional form that leads to it will keep dying off.

There are a number of cases, for example the evolution of the eye, where it seems that a half-way stage would actually be quite incompetent and unlikely to survive.

Furthermore, if life did evolve through a series of transitional forms, where are all the fossils of these organisms? There are some fossils which may possibly be transitional, but they are rare.

The God hypothesis

Now how then are we going to explain the fact that you and I are here? You could say, "I'm not going to believe in God, I'm just going to believe it all happened by chance." If you do I think you are taking a huge leap of faith. Shouldn't we at least investigate the alternative - that God created us?

If God exists we may find that he used the process of evolution to create us. Or perhaps he didn't. But let's at least start by investigating whether he is there.

Let me tell you some of the evidence that drives me to the conclusion that God does exist - and that he wants us to come into a personal relationship with him. It centres around Jesus.

How can I know if God exists?

If you are to search for God where should you look? If he does exist it is unlikely that he would hide himself from us completely. It is more likely that he would reveal himself to us in some way.

I suggest you should start your search by looking at Jesus. He claims to be God. If that claim is true then there is no doubt that God exists (because how can Jesus be God if God doesn't exist?). I am convinced Jesus is God. One of the most powerful pieces of evidence that has led me to this conclusion is that he rose from the dead three days after being killed. Therefore I recommend that you investigate the resurrection for yourself.

Investigating the claim

So the question arises, how can you investigate the claim that Jesus rose from the dead? You can't ask him to rise again under laboratory conditions. But that mustn't limit you. It's no good saying that you're only going to believe things you can test in a laboratory. If you did that you couldn't believe most things, including the whole of history and your boy/girlfriend's claim to love you.

We're now in the realms of observational science and have to look at all the available evidence. Two good places to start would be the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances.

An observation that doesn't fit the theory

Perhaps you find it hard to accept that Jesus could rise from the dead because you have never known anyone rise from the dead. The way this is sometimes expressed is, "No-one rises from the dead. Therefore Jesus couldn't have, it's impossible."

That is actually a very unscientific approach. Here we have a theory (that no-one can rise from the dead) and a claimed observation that conflicts with it (that Jesus rose from the dead). Now the good scientist won't disregard the observation because it doesn't fit the theory. No, the good scientist will investigate the observation as much as he can, and if it holds up he will modify his theory.

What do you do with observation A? The good scientist won't ignore it and draw a straight line - he will investigate to see if it is correct.

Isn't this how the great advances in science have taken place? Scientists have found an observation that doesn't fit the theory, investigated it and then changed the theory. Galileo investigated the movement of sun-spots and changed the theory of the cosmos, from the sun orbiting the earth to the earth orbiting the sun. Madame Curie investigated unexpected levels of radio-activity and disproved the accepted view that elements cannot change into other elements.

The empty tomb

It seems that the tomb in which Jesus' body was laid was empty after the claimed resurrection. There appears to be no body that the Jews or Romans could show to people to stop the stories that Jesus had risen from the dead. The idea that the disciples stole the body doesn't fit with their teaching on truth or their willingness to suffer terrible deaths for their belief in the resurrection.

The resurrection appearances

It would seem that after Jesus rose to life again he showed himself to many witnesses. These events do not appear to have been individual hallucinations or cases of mistaken identity. Rather, over a long period, groups of people saw him, talked with him and even touched him.

I have found that the more I look at the evidence concerning the resurrection the more convincing I find it. I recommend that you carry out a careful and thoughtful study.

Your own "experiment" - beyond science

There is, of course, another way you can find out if Jesus is alive and if God is really there. You can ask him! Jesus said that if we are prepared to obey him and change our lives in any way he commands, then he will reveal himself to us.

This is an "experiment" open to anyone. But it isn't a game. It's no good coming to Jesus and not being prepared to change your life. You must be prepared to obey him - then he promises that you will come into a life-changing experience of him.

Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." Jesus Christ (John 14 v 21)