Christian Responses: Faith and Science (Part 2)

Faith and science p2:

The present favored candidate for a GUT is superstring theory, but accepting its ideas depends upon believing that theorists, on the basis of mathematical considerations alone, can second-guess the character of nature at a level of detail more than ten thousand million million times smaller than anything of which we have direct empirical evidence.
One may well feel that this act of faith by the physicists is a reflection of a trust, doubtless often unconsciously entertained, in the consistency of the one God whose will is the origin of the order of the created universe.

“The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious, and there is no rational explanation for it… it is an article of faith.” ~ Eugene Wigner, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“The belief that there are indeed dependable regularities [the sun will rise each day] of nature – is an act of faith, but one which is indispensable to the progress of science.” ~ Theoretical physicist Paul Davies

“Science does not explain the mathematical intelligibility of the physical world, for it is part of science’s founding faith that this is so.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge

“Physics is powerless to explain its faith in the mathematical intelligibility of the universe for the simple reason that you’ve got to believe in the intelligibility of the universe before you can do any physics at all.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge

And Einstein said that he could not image a physicist who did not posses “such faith”.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…” ~ Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin

“It seems as though someone has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe… The impression of design is overwhelming.” ~ Theoretical physicist Paul Davies

“Biology, is the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

“Living objects… look designed, they look overwhelmingly as though they’re designed.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

“We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully “designed” to have come into existence by chance.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.” Palaeontologist Jun-Yuan Chen

Atheists use evolution to extrapolate macro changes from micro changes. Yet in meaning and purpose they reverse the idea and postulate that there are only micro meanings with no meta-narrative.

Advancements of science done on atheistic presuppositions will lead to the same results as advancements of science done on theistic presuppositions.

*****

What the blunder of Galileo was to the church, the Piltdown man was to evolution.

{Biology & evolution}

There is no genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.

There is nothing in any precise concept of the gene that allows a set of biochemicals to create anything at all. If no precise concept of the gene is at issue, the idea that we are created by our genes, body and mind, represents a far less plausible thesis then the correlative doctrine that we are created by our Maker, body and mind.

Natural selection is not creative. It is a “weeding out process” that leaves the stronger progeny. The stronger progeny must already be there; it is not produced by natural selection. Selection is made from already existing entities. It has no innovative capacity; it eliminates or maintains what exists. And natural selection does not cause a mutation. That occurs by chance.

Biological evolution (whatever its extent) requires a fine-tuned universe in which to occur so that no arguments about the nature or status of evolution can undermine the arguments for an intelligent designer.

The assertion that natural selection has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt must be judged for what it is: it is the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a cousin in kind to an ecclesiastical bluff.

Geneticist Michael Denton states that molecular biology has shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore, no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.
This view is supported by Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod, whom Denton cites. “We have no idea what the structure of a primitive cell might have been. The simplest living system known to us, the bacterial cell…in its overall chemical plan is the same as that of all other living beings. It employs the same genetic code and the same mechanism of translation as do, for example, human cells. Thus the simplest cells available to us for study have nothing “primitive” about them…No vestiges of truly primitive structures are discernible.
Robert Wesson, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California put it this way, “Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any.” By contrast, micro-evolutionary variations due to mutation and natural selection have been and are observed.