galactic center, high energy sources bathe surrounding planets in ionizing radiation, gamma rays and x-rays, which destroy life, not to mention the occasional supernova. Ionizing radiation dissipates further from the galactic center as do the number of heavy elements required for life. Earth lies in the sweet spot in a spiral galaxy ideally positioned for life.
Dramatic pictures of galaxies beamed down from the Hubble telescope inspire awe and wonder. Some scientists assure us that these only confirm the wonder of humanity’s chance existence. Is there a purpose to this series of coincidences?
Complexity and Design
Seeking understanding is an essentially human quest because people are naturally curious, pattern-finding beings. People see the stars as outlines of animals in a starry zoo. Children persistently question “Why?” Science uses design axioms to understand diverse types of complex systems. And seemingly random coincidences are interpreted as arising by design. A plane smashing into a building is a devastating accident. Two planes crashing into the same building establishes a pattern and unleashes questions: Why? Who? Patterns, even in the midst of tragedy, often cause people to search for deeper meaning in their lives.
In Victorian England, the world’s complexity and structure was famously accredited to God when, in 1802, the Reverend William Paley published Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Imagine walking across an English heath and finding a watch, “the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker.”13 In the same way, the integrated parts of nature bear witness to God’s design. Paley’s natural theology resonated with believers and remained part of apologetics training for ministers up until the turn of the twentieth century. Darwin’s idea of descent with modification, however, provided a non-supernatural mechanism to explain design that ultimately became the demise of natural theology. Into the theological void sprang scientific creationism, an argument which explains the universe’s order as stemming from God’s omnipotent hand a mere few thousand years ago.
Battered by dramatic advances in science, scientific creationism had all but disappeared toward the latter part of the twentieth century. In the 1990s the basic argument that patterns in nature stem from an intelligent designer was reinvigorated. Some Americans with religious convictions were receptive to ideas that sought to show that the purpose evident in their personal lives was due to God’s inherent design of creation. Prepared as a legal case by lawyer Phillip Johnson, the book Darwin on Trial argued that the fossil record did not provide sufficient scientific evidence to support biological evolution’s claims. This was soon followed by biochemist Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box, which argued that gaps in the expected transitions arose because some biological entities were essentially irreducibly complex and could only have been made by an intelligent designer. Further support for the theory of “intelligent design” was advanced through a mathematical treatment of design that demonstrated how specified complexity is empirically detectable and therefore scientific.
The hope for an intelligent design research program has not materialized, but instead has alienated some scientists with Christian convictions.
Described as the most significant contribution to systematic theology this century, “Scientific Theology” offers a more moderate, and theologically oriented approach to the design in nature. In essence, biochemist-theologian Alister McGrath argues, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics and the regularity and intelligibility of nature do not prove the existence of God but do reinforce the plausibility of an already existing belief.14
This idea has grown into a more nuanced form of natural theology. This new form claims that belief in God provides a more complete and rationally persuasive view of nature that better fits with the lived human experience than a purely materialistic worldview. Today’s natural theologians begin with the belief in God, then ask what kind of a world would be expected from a good God, and only then look for evidence in the world around them that will confirm their belief. Any other approach, such as Paley’s, ultimately rests on an extra-religious assumption that builds a proof for God’s existence on a material basis.
The new form of natural theology augments evidence for an already existing belief by showing how the world is consistent with the existence of a loving God. The approach locates natural theology as a subset of theology rather than as an independent, materialist line of inquiry. Natural theology does not offer proof that God exists, but rather, helps to reconcile some of the apparent contradictions between nature and theology (for example, see chapter 3 for a theological discussion of how death and suffering in an evolutionary progression might be compatible with divine creation).
Conclusion
Can science interpret the amazing fine tuning of the world to extract a purpose within the universe? Pascal, the brilliant mathematician and philosopher, turned to statistics for an answer: either God exists or he doesn’t. If God exists and you believe in Him then the reward is life in eternity. If God exists and you don’t believe in Him then you end up in eternal damnation. If God doesn’t exist and you believe, you’ve probably made a few sacrifices that you wouldn’t have otherwise have made whereas if God doesn’t exist and you don’t believe, then you’re even. If you gamble the best choice is to believe God does exist. This, however, while rational, is hardly the way that most people decide to believe in God.
Others seek purpose in the essence of nature. If people are ultimately only the product of nature and if individuals have purpose, then purpose must arise from natural processes. Does this type of purpose exist in cells or just in higher organisms? Answers to this question remain elusive.
Space agencies spend billions to find life in the outer reaches of the cosmos. If life can be found on other planets, on a remote moon, or tucked away in the corner of the galaxy then maybe the origin of life is not as special as it currently appears. The origin of life, and humanity in particular, might really be chance and a good chance at that.
What is life all about? Dramatic advances in cosmology reveal intricate details of the Big Bang. Does the fine structure of the universe impose meaning? People’s answers constitute part of a lifelong quest to discover and extract meaning from life. Some people interpret events as happenstance while others attribute positive outcomes to God’s providence. Theists believe that the evidence is overwhelming, whereas atheists assert that belief prevents humanity from making the next evolutionary progression to a higher form of intelligence. Who’s right? Only God knows!
Discussion Questions
1. Science has been fantastically successful in unlocking the secrets of nature. Why is science so effective at being able to provide answers about how the world works? Why are people able to comprehend the universe?
2. Given the predicted end of earth’s solar system in about thirty million years, what is the most imperative aim for humanity?
3. Conflicts between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine have caused much difficulty for people wanting to live as intellectually honest followers of God. Are scientific discoveries ever able to change the interpretation of religion and are religious texts ever able to influence the pursuit of science?
4. Dramatic images of galaxies, star birth, and supernovae are available on the web and in television documentaries. These presentations often emphasize the awe and wonder of these images. Is this scientific or philosophical? Do these images and the feelings they invoke make you believe that they are the result of creation by God or the result of random chance?
5. If God made the universe then why isn’t there clear scientific evidence for God’s existence?
6. The standard Big Bang model
