Check out the So We Speak podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
Here are the links to the previous two podcasts in this series!
Following Meyer’s explanation of the arguments for the creation of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, and the origin of life, Meyers asks, “How have other scientists responded to these arguments?”
Stephen Hawking
Hawking majored in space and time relativity and was brilliant in advanced mathematics. However, he did not see the mathematical need for the universe to have a beginning.
While Hawking did amazing things, no one can prove (from a philosophical perspective) what it was that Hawking accomplished with his calculations or determine if those calculations had an inherent meaning that could determine the origins of the universe.
Hawking approaches his work with a pre-conceived viewpoint that there was no order in the universe’s origin. His doctoral work had this end goal to disprove the orderly creation of our world. He was famous for trying to reach back behind the “Big Bang” and find out what was going on. He attempts to answer the question, “If there is no Creator, but there is the Big Bang, how do we explain the origins of the Big Bang?”
Hawking and The Infinite Multi-Verse?
One way scientists attempt to explain away fine-tuning is the theory of a multi-verse. This theory conveniently does away with the need to explain the origins of the universe because, as this theory purports, there is a “universe-making machine.”
This requires belief in the existence of such a machine – no one can tell us about this machine, but some believe it exists. This machine would have to be vastly superior to the universe in complexity and scope to create the universe with all its intricacies and detail. And according to this theory, this machine is creating an infinite number of universes which supposedly does away with the need to explain how our universe came to exist.
One issue with this theory is the existence of an infinite number of universes. The word “infinite” is slippery because there is no such thing as infinite matter. An example of this is the existence of rocks. We would not say that there is an infinite number of rocks and, no matter how many you count, there will always be one more. We live in a finite universe with a finite amount of matter.
No matter how many tricks Hawking can do with advanced math, physical reality disproves it in terms of infinite and finite matter.
God of the Gaps Accusation
Many scientists argue that Christians have made up the existence of a Divine Being to explain the existence of the universe and to fill in any explanatory gap that Christians might come across in their scientific understanding.
However, this is no different than if Christians flip the “God of the Gaps'' accusation around to scientists. What exists then is the “Science of the Gaps,” where scientists twist science to make it say what they want and come up with explanations such as the Multi-Verse Theory (which is not very scientific in and of itself).
Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is probably the most prominent modern-day specialist scientists in the world. Even though Tyson was a fan of Isaac Newton, Tyson tells of when Newton couldn’t explain the motions of Jupiter and several other space objects, he claimed the interference of divine beings to get those items into motion. Tyson claimed Newton imposed God on science. How does Tyson so deeply appreciate Newton and claim Newton explained the motion of objects in this way?
Meyers personally read all of Newton’s work and found none of the claims Tyson brought to Newton’s work. Tyson claimed Newton was a science killer because he imposed God on science. While Newton was deeply religious, he offered some extremely valuable discoveries to the scientific field.
Science involves the identification of a gap in knowledge and the attempt to explain that gap. Newton did this with the existence of gravity and the motion of stars not through divine explanation but through geometry that was untestable at that time. Science often throws possibilities into gaps (unless proven wrong) based on abductive reasoning.
Where Do We Go From Here?
In the area of physics and biology, Christian apologetics has the lead.
Science is “ripe for a revolution” mainly because there are too many abstractions in secular theories.
Science cannot give us the ultimate answers for the deeper questions humanity asks – it cannot adequately answer the questions of origin, meaning, life, etc., outside the existence of a Divine Being. Science is a tool God has given us to explore the world. Let’s use it as a tool and not use it as a God-replacement.
Brittany Proffitt lives in Dallas and is a writer and content manager for So We Speak.
Comments