Better Answer for Where we Came From
Where did we come from? How did we, as human beings, come to inhabit this planet? I submit to you that the Christian faith provides a better explanation for how we got here than the non-theistic alternatives.
You may think that one can only accept the Biblical view of origins by rejecting science and embracing faith—not an informed faith, but a faith that closes its eyes to the evidence. You may be surprised to know that among top-level scientists, about half are theists (Elaine Ecklund, Science vs Religion, Oxford Press, 2010). One of these, Dr. Francis Collins, once the director of the Human Genome Project, states:
I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views (Francis Collins, The Language of God, New York:
Free Press, 2006).
This is not surprising when one realizes that modern science sprung out of a Christian world view. Key pioneers of modern Western science such as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Boyle were all serious Christians. This is not merely coincidental--rather, it was their faith that gave them confidence that the physical world could be understood. Science for them was the challenge of discovering the inner workings of what God had created. Johannes Kepler had this understanding when he stated that in his scientific research he was “thinking God’s thoughts after him” (http://www.azquotes.com/author/7921-Johannes_Kepler).
Among followers of Christ, there are different opinions about evolution—some reject it at the macro level and others believe God used the process of evolution to create the world. But, for the purpose of establishing the intellectual viability of theism, it is not necessary to get sidetracked with this debate. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Darwin’s theory of evolution is essentially true. There remains the question of where the first living cell came from, for without that, evolution of higher life forms, including humans, could not take place. Solving this question is a remarkably difficult challenge for which scientists still do not have a very satisfactory answer, even after decades of scientific research. But even this is not the primary issue. Suppose that scientists could adequately explain, in purely naturalistic terms, the origin of life. The question remains of how a universe such as ours exists, in which there is even the possibility of life. For a bio-friendly universe requires the constants of the universe to be exceedingly fine-tuned.
For example, the expansion rate of the early universe had to be precise to the extreme. If the universe had expanded too quickly, matter would have dispersed so efficiently that none of it would have clumped to form galaxies. If no galaxies had formed, then no stars would have formed, and if no stars had formed, no planets would have formed. And if no planets had formed, there would be no place for life. On the other hand, if the universe had expanded too slowly, matter would have clumped so efficiently that the whole universe would have collapsed into a super-dense lump before any solar-type stars could have formed. As astronomer Hugh Ross explains (Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, pp. 150-151), the expansion velocity is affected by the cosmic mass density and by the cosmic space energy density. In order for the universe to have produced all the stars and planets necessary to explain the possibility of the earth sustaining physical life, the value of the cosmic mass density had to be fine-tuned to better than one part in 10(60) and the value of the space energy density needed fine tuning to better than one part in 10(120).
These are just two constants among many that must be fine-tuned to make life possible. These are not secrets to the scientific community. One scientist has said:
A superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology (Fred Hoyle, quoted in The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 157).
And another, the renowned and brilliant scientist Stephen Hawking, has added:
Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration.
That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is this way (Hawking, The Grand Design, p. 162).
Another well-known physicist has likened the fine-tuning of the universe to an elaborate control room with many levers assigned to precise settings, which, if even one of them is moved enough to be discernible, will disable the possibility of life in our universe (Paul Davies, The Cosmic Jackpot).
For many, the reasonable conclusion, when confronted with such evidence, is to recognize that there must be an Intelligent Designer, a Master Mathematician, namely God, who perfectly prepared our universe for life. Such a conclusion is a reasonable belief. It almost seems to be an inescapable conclusion, as even a prize-winning astronomer agrees when he says:
I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but the
explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing (Allan Sandage, winner of the Crafoord prize in
astronomy, (quoted in Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 160).
To this to scripture adds its support, saying:
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands (Psalm 19:1).
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse (Romans 1:20).
Yet not all agree with this conclusion. Because they do not wish to be bound to faith in God, they use their intellects to devise viable alternatives which can allow them to sustain their atheism. Hawking proposes multiple universes—10(500) of them (The Grand Design, pp. 117-118)! In spite of the extreme fine-tuning needed for a bio-friendly universe, given potentially such a large number of universes, it becomes feasible that one of them could have just the right parameters needed for life. But keep in mind that this is a speculative theory and not an established scientific conclusion. Fellow scientist Paul Davies points out that the multi-verse theory requires a lot of very “convenient” physics to make it work. For starters, it must have a universe-generating mechanism. Davies concludes: “The problem of existence has therefore not gone away, it has only been shifted up a level” (Davies, The Cosmic Jackpot, p. 264).
Do not think that because scientists like Hawking or others claim to explain the existence of a bio-friendly universe without God that they have disproved the existence of God. When they propose such ideas, they have gone beyond science into naturalistic philosophy. Hawking has merely discarded faith in a God he cannot see for faith in multiple universes which he cannot see. For science, by definition, can only observe and study the universe we live in—all others remain hypothetical and incapable of proof through means of science.
So, the choice before you is not one of science versus faith, as though you must throw out your intellect to be a believer in God, but rather faith in one thing versus faith in another—faith in someone you cannot see versus faith in something you cannot see, in this case faith in God versus faith in multiple universes (see note 1 below). You may think you will take your chances by going with the speculations of a brilliant scientist rather than the teachings of outdated theologians. But remember, half of top-level scientists do believe in God, and they do so in spite of the anti-faith bias that they, like many of you, have been influenced by during the rigors of academic training.
What principle might guide you in choosing between the theistic and non-theistic options on the matter of origins? Is it merely a toss-up? Does the Christian faith provide a better explanation for how we got here than the non-theistic alternatives? The conclusion you reach is influenced by your own bias—whether a faith bias or an anti-faith bias. Is there any objective way to evaluate the two ideas to determine the better option?
A man by the name of Occam proposed a principle that bears his name, a principle which helps us to answer the question: “If a given set of facts about the world can be explained by more than one theory, how do we choose between them?” The principle of Occam’s razor is that you pick the theory with the least number of independent assumptions. In other words, when it comes to a convincing explanation, simpler is usually better. Physicist Paul Davies, a theist of sorts, though not a traditional theist (see note 2 below), argues that by introducing vast complexity to explain the fine-tuned qualities of our one universe, the many-universes theory runs contrary to the principle of Occam’s razor. Davies finds this approach to explaining the specialness of our universe to be scientifically questionable (The Cosmic Jackpot. p. 264). Thus, it can be argued that theism, such as the theism of the Christian faith (though at this point in our argument not limited to that) provides a better explanation for how we got here than the non-theistic alternatives.
- Other options exist as well, such as an eternal universe. If the universe has always existed, then with unlimited time, anything is possible, even the chance formation of a fine-tuned universe. But belief in an eternal universe went out of favor with most scientists when the “big bang” became the consensus among scientists. Fred Hoyle with his steady state theory was a holdout for an eternal universe, and other variations, such as oscillating models, were also proposed (see William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, pp. 126-156, for a summary of models). A theorem by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin in 2003 effectively ruled out the option of an eternal universe. It states that any universe which on average over its past history has been in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have a spacetime boundary (Craig, p. 140).
- Davies believes in a sort of Cosmic Mind, but not in the personal God of the Bible.
Next Chapter: Better Purpose
For further study: (click and read)
For three Christian perspectives on origins, see:
(1) Evolutionary creation (Theistic Evolution): www.biologos.org
(2) Old Earth Creation: Hugh Ross www.reasons.org
(3) Recent Creation: Ken Ham answersingenesis.org
David Larson, Did God Create the Universe?
Book resources: (order from amazon or Christian Books Distributors (CBD)
(1) Francis Collins, The Language of God (evolutionary creation point of view)
(2) Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days (Old Earth Creation point of view)
(3) Henry M. Morris and John D. Morris, The Modern Creation Trilogy (Recent Creation point of view)
(4) Tim Keller, The Reason for God, chapter 6: Science Has Disproved Christianity
(5) Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator
(6) Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies (part 1)
Among followers of Christ, there are different opinions about evolution—some reject it at the macro level and others believe God used the process of evolution to create the world. But, for the purpose of establishing the intellectual viability of theism, it is not necessary to get sidetracked with this debate. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Darwin’s theory of evolution is essentially true. There remains the question of where the first living cell came from, for without that, evolution of higher life forms, including humans, could not take place. Solving this question is a remarkably difficult challenge for which scientists still do not have a very satisfactory answer, even after decades of scientific research. But even this is not the primary issue. Suppose that scientists could adequately explain, in purely naturalistic terms, the origin of life. The question remains of how a universe such as ours exists, in which there is even the possibility of life. For a bio-friendly universe requires the constants of the universe to be exceedingly fine-tuned.
For example, the expansion rate of the early universe had to be precise to the extreme. If the universe had expanded too quickly, matter would have dispersed so efficiently that none of it would have clumped to form galaxies. If no galaxies had formed, then no stars would have formed, and if no stars had formed, no planets would have formed. And if no planets had formed, there would be no place for life. On the other hand, if the universe had expanded too slowly, matter would have clumped so efficiently that the whole universe would have collapsed into a super-dense lump before any solar-type stars could have formed. As astronomer Hugh Ross explains (Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, pp. 150-151), the expansion velocity is affected by the cosmic mass density and by the cosmic space energy density. In order for the universe to have produced all the stars and planets necessary to explain the possibility of the earth sustaining physical life, the value of the cosmic mass density had to be fine-tuned to better than one part in 1060 and the value of the space energy density needed fine tuning to better than one part in 10(120).
These are just two constants among many that must be fine-tuned to make life possible. These are not secrets to the scientific community. One scientist has said:
A superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology (Fred Hoyle, quoted in The Creator
and the Cosmos, p. 157).
And another, the renowned and brilliant scientist Stephen Hawking, has added:
Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist,
leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is this
way (Hawking, The Grand Design, p. 162).
Another well-known physicist has likened the fine-tuning of the universe to an elaborate control room with many levers assigned to precise settings, which, if even one of them is moved enough to be discernible, will disable the possibility of life in our universe (Paul Davies, The Cosmic Jackpot).
For many, the reasonable conclusion, when confronted with such evidence, is to recognize that there must be an Intelligent Designer, a Master Mathematician, namely God, who perfectly prepared our universe for life. Such a conclusion is a reasonable belief. It almost seems to be an inescapable conclusion, as even a prize-winning astronomer agrees when he says:
I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me
is a mystery but the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing (Allan Sandage,
winner of the Crafoord prize in astronomy, quoted in Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 160).
To this to scripture adds its support, saying:
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands (Psalm 19:1).
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse (Romans 1:20).
Yet not all agree with this conclusion. Because they do not wish to be bound to faith in God, they use their intellects to devise viable alternatives which can allow them to sustain their atheism. Hawking proposes multiple universes—10(500) of them (The Grand Design, pp. 117-118)! In spite of the extreme fine-tuning needed for a bio-friendly universe, given potentially such a large number of universes, it becomes feasible that one of them could have just the right parameters needed for life. But keep in mind that this is a speculative theory and not an established scientific conclusion. Fellow scientist Paul Davies points out that the multi-verse theory requires a lot of very “convenient” physics to make it work. For starters, it must have a universe-generating mechanism. Davies concludes: “The problem of existence has therefore not gone away, it has only been shifted up a level” (Davies, The Cosmic Jackpot, p. 264).
Do not think that because scientists like Hawking or others claim to explain the existence of a bio-friendly universe without God that they have disproved the existence of God. When they propose such ideas, they have gone beyond science into naturalistic philosophy. Hawking has merely discarded faith in a God he cannot see for faith in multiple universes which he cannot see. For science, by definition, can only observe and study the universe we live in—all others remain hypothetical and incapable of proof through means of science.
So, the choice before you is not one of science versus faith, as though you must throw out your intellect to be a believer in God, but rather faith in one thing versus faith in another—faith in someone you cannot see versus faith in something you cannot see, in this case faith in God versus faith in multiple universes (note 1 below). You may think you will take your chances by going with the speculations of a brilliant scientist rather than the teachings of outdated theologians. But remember, half of top-level scientists do believe in God, and they do so in spite of the anti-faith bias that they, like many of you, have been influenced by during the rigors of academic training.
What principle might guide you in choosing between the theistic and non-theistic options on the matter of origins? Is it merely a toss-up? Does the Christian faith provide a better explanation for how we got here than the non-theistic alternatives? The conclusion you reach is influenced by your own bias—whether a faith bias or an anti-faith bias. Is there any objective way to evaluate the two ideas to determine the better option?
A man by the name of Occam proposed a principle that bears his name, a principle which helps us to answer the question: “If a given set of facts about the world can be explained by more than one theory, how do we choose between them?” The principle of Occam’s razor is that you pick the theory with the least number of independent assumptions. In other words, when it comes to a convincing explanation, simpler is usually better. Physicist Paul Davies, a theist of sorts, though not a traditional theist (note 2), argues that by introducing vast complexity to explain the fine-tuned qualities of our one universe, the many-universes theory runs contrary to the principle of Occam’s razor. Davies finds this approach to explaining the specialness of our universe to be scientifically questionable (The Cosmic Jackpot. p. 264). Thus, it can be argued that theism, such as the theism of the Christian faith (though at this point in our argument not limited to that) provides a better explanation for how we got here than the non-theistic alternatives.
- Other options exist as well, such as an eternal universe. If the universe has always existed, then with unlimited time, anything is possible, even the chance formation of a fine-tuned universe. But belief in an eternal universe went out of favor with most scientists when the “big bang” became the consensus among scientists. Fred Hoyle with his steady state theory was a holdout for an eternal universe, and other variations, such as oscillating models, were also proposed (see William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, pp. 126-156, for a summary of models). A theorem by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin in 2003 effectively ruled out the option of an eternal universe. It states that any universe which on average over its past history has been in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have a spacetime boundary (Craig, p. 140).
- Davies believes in a sort of Cosmic Mind, but not in the personal God of the Bible.