Transcript Session 5 - Hartshill Bible Church

Science has disproved Christianity!
The ‘conflict’ between science and religion.
Dr. C.K.Tan BPharm MSc PhD MRPharmS PgCertMedEd
St. James’ church, Audley
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.
…. introduction
Contents
 Facts about science
 Facts about scientists
 Christian approaches to the evolutionary theory
 The Evolutionary Theory
- philosophical problems
- scientific problems
 Summary
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.
.... 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.
....facts about science
You can disagree about theories in
origins science and yet be fully and
perfectly scientific!
.... 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.
.... 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.
…. 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.
.... 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.
.... 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.
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!
…. 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 nonChristians alike! Therefore, the non-God position
should not be the ‘default’ position.
…. 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).
…. 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.
…. 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.’
Christian approaches to evolution



Theistic evolution
Intelligent Design
Creation science/scientific creationism
… 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
… 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
… 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
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
…. 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’
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.
....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.
....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.
....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 selfinterests and this goes against the cardinal tenet of
evolutionary progress - ‘survival of the fittest’?
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!
….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.’
….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
….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’.
….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.
….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)
….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 related beneficial
mutation than to have related mutations!
….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.’
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.
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…
… 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?
… 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.
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!)
… 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