Trust the science, not the scientists

Written by Phil Lawler (Biography – Articles – Email) | April 16, 2024

In boxing, if one fighter is unable to defend himself, the referee will stop the match and declare a technical knockout (TKO). It may be useful to apply the same system to public forums. When one side is so thoroughly beaten that there is no longer any question on the matter, someone should step in and declare a TKO to protect what remains of the loser’s dignity.

That thought crossed my mind as I read it. The Greatness of God: The Catholic Case for Intelligent Design, a collection of essays by scientists and philosophers deconstructing the claim that the universe came into being through a chance process and that humans evolved. The authors demonstrate that these claims are scientifically and philosophically untenable, not to mention incompatible with the Christian faith.

In the introduction, editor Ann Gauger summarizes the views the book opposes by quoting the famous atheist Richard Dawkins.

The universe we observe has exactly the properties you would expect if there were no underlying plan, no purpose, no evil or good, only blind, pitiless indifference.

Contrast that dark assessment of our situation with the warmth and confidence expressed in Psalm 8.

When I see your heavens and the work of your fingers,
The moon and the stars you have appointed.
Who is a man that you should pay attention to him?
And is it the Son of Man that you care about him?
Yet you make him less than God,
and crown him with glory and honor.

Needless to say, the latter vision is more appealing.However, as the greatness of god As shown, the psalmist’s approach is also more logical. It is King David, not Richard Dawkins, whose cosmology is in perfect agreement with established facts.

Faithful materialists argue that our world is the result of random chance. Gases burn and cool, forming new elements that come together to form stars, planets, mountains, and fields. Chemicals that inexplicably create life forms that evolve through mutation and natural selection. These explanations of our situation are In theory It’s possible, but is it realistic?

First, consider that materialist explanations do not explain the existence of matter itself. Yes, the beginning of the universe is the Big Bang.but what Did you get hit? Before that fundamental explosion, something had to explode. why?

Now consider the possibility that a series of random changes could give rise to our world and the creatures that inhabit it. The odds of that outcome are astronomical. And I use the term “astronomical” cautiously because astronomers are usually the only ones who work with numbers large enough to express probabilities against materialist explanations. These are not 1 in a million chances, or even 1 in a trillion chances.at some points the greatness of godThe authors have struggled to express numbers large enough to convey the probability that just one of the thousands of different conditions necessary to support life on Earth will occur at random. Masu.

The same incredulity, and more, undermines the credibility of the strictly materialistic Darwinian theory of evolution. For example, the evolution of a functioning eye theoretically requires several steps involving random genetic mutations. However, ‘survival of the fittest’ cannot explain this progression, as none of these mutations confers a reproductive advantage in the absence of other mutations.

Or use a simpler form, the bacterial flagellum. In his essay, Jay Richards states that flagella “require 153 independent mutations to occur simultaneously.” Since none of them individually or as a subset confer a survival advantage to the bacteria, self-guided A Darwinian process would almost certainly not achieve this goal. ”

However, as Richards and other contributors have shown, guided process did it Achieve the results in front of you. Therefore, there is a common belief that the universe in general, and human life in particular, is the product of intelligent design. This belief does not negate the scientific approach.On the contrary, it is hug It is a type of science in the sense that it uses evidence presented by nature to reach rational conclusions. Another contributor, Ben Wiker, said, “The more we know about nature, the more we realize how deeply intelligible it is, and therefore the more powerfully we can demonstrate the existence of God.” I am.

By the way, Wiker also answers a question that may be on the mind of many readers: If science shows God’s work so clearly, why are so many scientists incredulous? Is it? Wiker cites the example of Joseph Priestley, a leading scientist who is generally credited with discovering oxygen.In fact, Priestley evidence Although he believed that oxygen existed, he adamantly refused to believe in it, as his religious beliefs led him to defend the phlogiston theory of combustion. Old beliefs die hard, and scientists who cling to old theories often ignore the evidence in front of them.

In his essay, Jay Richards explores another reason why scientists resist the appeal of intelligent design. That’s because scientists value an understanding of scientific research that systematically excludes anything that might suggest religious beliefs. That understanding, Richards points out, was critical to the development of evolutionary theory.

In Darwin’s argument, origin of species, unlike most scientific theories, adopted the theological “God wouldn’t do things this way” argument throughout. At the same time, he treated alternatives to his own theory (i.e. special creation) as not being proper scientific theories. His arguments were therefore a contradictory mixture of appeals to theological premises and appeals to distance theology from science.

Fast forward to today’s discussion. There, a cadre of Christian Scientists argued that the theory of evolution could be reconciled with reality, and that all the extraordinarily long probabilities could be shortened by the recognition that God guided the evolutionary process. I am. While that’s perfectly logical, the argument fails on a practical level, contributor Bruce Chapman explained: “The ‘God did it’ part should never be mentioned in any serious science class, so Darwinists are happy to accept this practical surrender.”

Earlier I suggested that the debate between materialistic evolution and intelligent design is a mismatch, and that the referee should stop the fight.Unfortunately the referee have But it wasn’t about awarding the design to Intelligent Design through TKO. Instead, judges such as editors of scientific journals, executives who manage foundation funds, government bureaucrats who set research standards, and educators who approve science curricula have pushed discussions about intelligent design out of mainstream discourse. I’ve been trying to make it happen. At this point.

But, as John Adams memorably put it, “Facts are stubborn things.” This fact cannot be reconciled with a purely materialistic understanding of how our universe and our lives are. Although the theory of intelligent design is not considered acceptable today, Galileo’s theory was not easily accepted at the time. Moving scientific consensus is not easy. It still works.

Phil Lawlor has been a Catholic journalist for over 30 years. He edited several Catholic magazines and wrote eight books. He is the founder of Catholic World News and CatholicCulture.org News where he is director and lead analyst. Check out our detailed bio.

There are no comments for this item yet.