|
"Regular experience, not negligible probabilities and remote possibilities, is the basis of science." |
|
|
|
|
Part 1
The answer to the question of the origin of the universe
has been sought after for many thousands of years. Ancient
paganism suggested that the Sun God was somehow responsible.
Later religions attributed the creation of the universe to
a Supreme Being outside of the universe. Today, many of us
think that science can explain it all, eliminating the need for a
belief in God.
But no explanation can be without philosophical and
religious overtones. Modern physics says that the universe in
which we live originated, or began to exist, at some finite
point in the past,[] yet the cause of its origin is completely
unknown to science. Cosmologists are still asking the questions:
Is our universe all that there is, just the lucky result of
a single spontaneous explosion? Or is ours only one of many
parallel universes, and just by chance one that happens to be
life-permitting? Or even more daring, is our universe the
handiwork of an expert Creator, intended exclusively for the
existence of life on earth, showing remarkable craftsmanship
and design?
If our universe was purposefully designed by a God, we
would expect it to be filled with evidence of design as opposed
to randomness and disorder. After decades of research
and scientific exploration, that is precisely what is being found. A growing number of scientists are beginning to view the “coincidences”
of the “anthropic principle” as extraordinary “evidence
to support the argument that the universe has been
designed for our benefit — tailor-made for man.” Indeed,
despite the public’s general unawareness, the idea that a God
created this finely tuned universe seems perfectly consistent
with what we do observe in the cosmos. However, “most scientists
prefer to shy away from the religious side of it,” as
Stephen Hawking expresses.
With the success of scientific theories in describing things,
most people have come to believe that the idea of God is ultimately
unnecessary to explain natural phenomena. In other
words, the notion of a supernatural Creator is less necessary
today because we are now more knowledgeable in the ways of
science.
But the problem with this type of reasoning is that, in
reality, just the opposite seems true: as science progresses, so
does the appearance of design in nature; the more we learn
from science, the more complicated we realize nature is. What
was once thought to be simple, such as a simple cell, is now
known to be more complex than even the most advanced piece
of machinery yet created by mankind.
So as we increasingly understand how nature works,
we also increasingly realize the depth of complexity and the
appearance of design in nature. In effect, the more we
progress in science, the less likely it seems that the universe
is the product of a mere accident, and therefore the stronger
the evidence seems to become for the involvement of a
Master Designer. Thus, rather than diminishing the idea
that the universe was intentionally designed by a God, the
continual progression of science seems to strengthen such a
notion.
[]
|