Science has disproved Christianity! The ‘conflict’ between science and religion.

1. Science has disproved Christianity!The ‘conflict’ between science and religion. Dr. C.K.Tan BPharm MSc PhD MRPharmS PgCertMedEd St. James’ church, Audley

2. Introduction Main ‘scientific’ objections raised against Christianity: • Christianity is blind faith and, therefore, illogical and unscientific • Science has disproved miracles and the supernatural - the Bible is wrong and made up of fairy tales. • Science has got rid of the need for God - evolution explains the origins of the universe and mankind • I will only tackle the third issue – evolution.

3. …. introduction Contents • Facts about science • Facts about scientists • Christian approaches to the evolutionary theory • The Evolutionary Theory - philosophical problems - scientific problems • Summary

4. Facts about science Point 1: Operational and ‘origin’ science • Almost all science is process, or operational science, which deals with repeatable observable processes in the present. • Eg. engineering, computing & mathematical sciences, physical & chemical sciences, medical & pharmaceutical sciences, and much of biological sciences. • In operational science, evolution has little relevance. Eg. you can build a bridge, perform brain surgery, formulate medicines, send men into space, or create a new computer without needing to know anything about evolution.

5. .... facts about science • There is absolutely no controversy between Christians and non-Christians, and between creationists and evolutionists, with respect to operational science. • Where there is disagreement is the SMALL area of science known as historical, or ‘origin’ science • Origin science deals with past events. Observations made in the presence is used to make inferences about the past. There is a lot of speculation involved. • It is particularly in the biological, geological and cosmological (study of the universe) sciences where there is great interest in the origins of the universe and life on earth.

6. ....facts about science You can disagree about theories in origins science and yet be fully and perfectly scientific!

7. .... facts about science Point 2:Paradigm or framework • Facts do not speak for themselves – they are interpreted according to a paradigm or framework or model. These facts, or pieces of evidence, don’t prove anything by themselves. Facts can be interpreted in different ways and scientists often disagree on the interpretation of events. • Eg. a court case involving a man accused of murder: Prosecutor’s framework: accused is guilty Defence’s framework: accused is innocent Note: same pieces of evidence but interpreted in two contrasting ways in order to draw two opposite conclusions.

8. .... facts about science • The theory of evolution is a framework, in the same way that Intelligent Design (ID), Scientific Creationism (SC), and Theistic Evolution (TE) are frameworks to explain origins. • We must NOT confuse the facts or observations used by the evolutionists (or ID or SC or TE) with the theory itself. Facts are, in themselves, neutral.

9. …. facts about science Point 3:Limitations of science • Science is limited to observations or measurements in the natural or material world. • It cannot prove or disprove something outside the five senses. • Because science deals with the material world, it can neither prove nor disprove the resurrection (a past event) nor the existence of God (something outside of time and space). • Beyond the physical you are dealing with philosophy and theology. Strictly speaking, it is outside the realms of science to debate the existence of God or the meaning of life.

10. .... facts about science • Science can explain HOW but it cannot explain WHY and for what purpose. • E.g. a murder victim – ballistic studies can point to the type of gun used, time of death, distance of the shooter from the victim, etc. but it cannot explain why the victim died (accident, suicide, manslaughter [unintentional], murder [intentional]. That requires a different but equally rational approach. • E.g. boiling water – physical properties or purpose? • Many scientists and atheists wrongly conclude that, because science cannot discover God, God cannot be discovered. Theology and philosophy more likely to provide answers as to why we are here.

11. .... facts about science Point 4: Popular science • The media will use phrases such as ‘Science has shown…..’ or ‘Scientists believe…..’ or ‘Scientists have proved….’ etc. • Statements by journalists can become so simplified in order to reach the general public that they can become untrue! E.g. recent monkey-like fossils claimed to be ‘missing links’. • Theories proposed by scientists are often couched with qualifications, assumptions, exceptions, and other possibilities. Many assertions by scientists, when subjected to peer discussion and debate, are often dropped or drastically modified. Yet they continue to be circulated in the media.

12. Facts about scientists Myth of the dispassionate scientist • Scientists are regarded as always impartial and objective. They ‘follow the evidence where it leads.’ • Much of science develops because scientists have an idea or a hunch. They then design experiments to support their position. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis, which is an idea or a concept. • That’s not wrong in itself but most scientific work is done to prove one’s position. He starts with a bias!

13. …. facts about scientists Myth about neutrality • Scientists, like all human beings, are affected by their worldviews and are as human as anyone else. • No one being lives in an intellectual, moral or spiritual vacuum; all thoughts and opinions arise from certain set premises. Our attitudes towards a whole range of issues (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, sex, marriage, homosexuality) are directly linked to the beliefs we hold, whether they be theistic, atheistic or agnostic. • We each have our worldview in each we view the world. We are all biased – Christians and non-Christians alike! Therefore, the non-God position should not be the ‘default’ position.

14. …. facts about scientists Scientists against Christian theologians? • John Lennox, in a debate with Richard Dawkins, stated that the problem is not between science and Christianity, but between two different worldviews. • Most atheistic scientists hold on to a materialistic and naturalistic philosophy: Materialism - material is all there is in the universe Naturalism - nature is all there is • These views cut out completely the possibility of the existence of a being outside time and space (God) and supernatural events (the virgin birth, miracles, Jesus’ resurrection).

15. …. facts about scientists • Difference between science and scientism • Scientism makes philosophical claims, such as the claim that truth and knowledge are only to be found by means of the scientific method, and what science cannot deal with cannot be really known or shown to be true. • Scientism rules out ahead of time anything which is not natural or physical. There is, therefore, no supernatural - hence no creator of the universe. • Evolution must be held to, despite any evidence to the contrary, because belief in God is not allowed.

16. …. facts about scientists Examples of biased worldviews: • Professor D.M.S. Watson: ‘Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible’ • Professor Richard Lewontin: ‘Materialism [is] an absolute for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ • Dr. Scott Todd : ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’

17. Christian approaches to evolution • Theistic evolution • Intelligent Design • Creation science/scientific creationism

18. … Christian approaches to evolution Theistic evolution: • Christian teachings about God and creation are compatible with biological evolution • God used evolution as a tool to create the universe and all life • Generally rejects Darwinist philosophy, e.g. survival of the fittest in society and resulting ethics • Fraught with theological difficulties, e.g. Romans 5 • Same scientific problems as those facing evolutionists

19. … Christian approaches to evolution Intelligent design: • Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as biological evolution. • Examples: Fine-tuning, irreducible complexity, the ‘Big Bang’ • They point to a designer or a higher intelligence • Accepts a long age for the earth • Does not involve theology

20. … Christian approaches to evolution Creationism (‘Creation science’) • God created the universe and human beings in six days as recorded in the Bible's first book, Genesis. • Also called ‘Young Earth Creationists’, believes the earth is tens of thousands of years old, as opposed to billions of years. • Rejects macro-evolution; humans did not evolve from other species • Uses science as well as theology to back up their position

21. The Evolutionary Theory Basic concept • Non-living matter gave rise to life; single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms; invertebrates (‘creatures without bones’) gave rise to vertebrates (‘creatures with bones’); ape-like creatures gave rise to man. • The progression, in terms of the vertebrates, is from fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds to primates to man • The mechanism – mutations and natural selection • Driving force is blind, random chance over billions of years

22. …. the Evolutionary Theory Need to differentiate between: • Changes within a ‘kind’ (‘microevolution’) e.g. many types of dogs but still dogs No problems for Christians • Changes between ‘kinds’ (‘macroevolution’) i.e. changes that increase the genetic information in an organism ‘Fish to philosopher’ ‘Frog to prince charming’ ‘Molecules to man’

23. Philosophical problems Non-life to life • How does non-life take on life and becomes an independent living entity? There is no instance recorded anywhere where non-life takes on life. • Instances of the dead induced back to life by medical intervention but these were humans who, not too long ago, possessed life.

24. ....philosophical problems Sexual reproduction • How is that the non-life that takes on life is able to reproduce itself? • Lower living forms reproduce asexually but higher forms need the male and the female to come together at the right time and in the right place to reproduce. How does this come about? • In nature, like always produces like. Eg. a dog always produces a dog and not something else.

25. ....philosophical problems How about consciousness? • Only human beings possess the sense of consciousness. • If we evolved billions of years ago from single celled organisms, how did this eventual collection of billions of cells come together in such a unified way as to gain this sense of consciousness? • We are more than the sum total of brain cells and nerves.

26. ....philosophical problems Conscience • What is the origin of conscience, this sense of right and wrong in all human beings? Where cometh this sense of revulsion within us when we transgress certain moral principles, law even, if you would? • Our conscience causes us to act against our self-interests and this goes against the cardinal tenet of evolutionary progress - ‘survival of the fittest’?

27. Scientific problems Lack of fossil evidence • According to Darwin himself, “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory” was that the fossil record failed to back up his evolutionary thesis. “Why,” he asked, “if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?” • His hope was that time will yield a more complete record to prove his hypothesis; after 150 years of digging it has not!

28. ….scientific problems • Dr. Colin Patterson FRS, formerly senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History: ‘I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil [a fossil which is ancestral or transitional] for which one could make a watertight argument.’

29. ….scientific problems Irreducible complexity • Charles Darwin, in the Origin of Species, said this, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.“ • Many biological and biochemical systems are shown to be all-or-nothing: either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn't work. • E.g. the simple mousetrap

30. ….scientific problems • Michael Behe, in his book, ‘Darwin’s Black Box’, lists some examples of irreducible complexity: The light-sensing system in animal eyes The transport system within the cell The bacterial flagellum The blood clotting system • All consist of a very complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified while maintaining their ability to function. They are ‘all-or-nothing’.

31. ….scientific problems Mathematical impossibility • Neo-Darwinist: accepts Darwin’s ideas about natural selection but believes that new traits (physical) come about by chance, by random changes in genes called “mutations”. • Mutations occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107, a 1 followed by seven zeroes). The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations.

32. ….scientific problems ….mathematical impossibility • The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. Three mutations in a row would have a chance of one in 1021; three related, positive and beneficial mutations, mind you. • Consider the millions and millions of related changes that would be would be needed to change a fish into a philosopher. • (Similar to the philosophical problem of reincarnation)

33. ….scientific problems ….mathematical impossibility • This is mathematically impossible! It does not even take into account the fact that almost every mutation is harmful or leads to a non-beneficial change. • Although it is theoretically possible to have a beneficial mutation, it is even more mathematically impossible to have a series of relatedbeneficialmutation than to have related mutations!

34. ….scientific problems • Sir Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist and mathematician: • ‘Well, as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small, but not in the large. Rabbits come from other slightly different rabbits, not from either [primeval] soup or potatoes. Where they come from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.’

35. Summary • Differentiate between science and scientism Stephen Jay Gould, eminent scientist and atheist: ‘Science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible existence. We neither affirm it nor deny it; we can’t comment on it as scientists.’ • Militant atheists attack Christianity in the name of science, but this is an abuse of science and has nothing do with the scientific method. • Scientific creationism and Intelligent Design have made a solid defence of the existence of God / Designer based on scientific observations.

36. Epilogue • ‘Imagine entering a hotel room on your next vacation. The CD player on the bedside table is softly playing a track from your favourite recording. The framed print over the bed is identical to the image that hangs over the fireplace at home. The room is scented with your favourite fragrance…You step over to the minibar, open the door, and stare in wonder at the contents. Your favourite beverage. Your favourite cookies and candy. Even the brand of bottled water you prefer…You notice the book on the desk: it’s the latest volume by your favourite author…

37. … epilogue • ‘Chances are, with each new discovery about your hospitable new environment, you would be less inclined to think it was all a mere coincidence, right? You might wonder how the hotel managers acquired such detailed information about you. You might marvel at their meticulous preparation. You might even double-check what all this is going to cost you. But you would certainly be inclined to believe that someone knew you were coming.’ • This was one of the observations that led the writer to his belief in a God. • Who is he?

38. … epilogue Professor Anthony Flew, the most prominent atheist philosopher in his generation, who in his later years became a theist. A few years before his death, he wrote the book, ‘There is a God’ and was vilified by some of this generation’s most intolerant atheists, including Richard Dawkins.

39. Useful resources Creation, evolution and intelligent design • Answers in Genesis (creationist science website) http://www.answersingenesis.org/ • Creation Ministries International (creationist science website) http://creation.com/ • Centre for Intelligent Design (U.K.) http://www.c4id.org.uk/ • Faraday Institute of Science and Religion (theistic evolution) http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/index.php (some good material but exercise great caution!)

40. … useful resources • The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel - strong case for ID for the non-expert • Should Christians embrace evolution? N. Nevin (ed.) - strong theological (and scientific) case against theistic evolution • The Creation Answers Book. D. Batten (ed.) • ‘Creation’ magazines • ‘Answers’ magazines • The is a God. Anthony Flew