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 envisages the intricate structure of billions of galaxies forming from an extremely dense, highly energetic singularity expanding in an extremely finely tuned manner. Is this equivalent to scientific belief in a miracle?
Further reading for “Is There Purpose to Life? Implications from the Big Bang”
1. Stephen Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003. Provides an unusual blend of cosmology and Christian reflection on the meaning of the physical events. Stephen Barr is a physicist at the University of Delaware and a Catholic who writes in a very accessible style from a Christian perspective.
2. Paul Davies, The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1992. Paul Davies is one of the few scientists who does not subscribe to conventional religion yet is adamant that the world is teaming with purpose. This book visits answers to how the world might have arisen, why the world is understandable, and why the question of meaning is so important. The style is light and engaging with a focus on ultimate meaning rather than the underlying math and physics.
3. Karl Giberson and Donald Yerxa. Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002. An excellent middle-of-the-road history of intelligent design particularly in the last three chapters.
4. Alister McGrath, The Science of God: An Introduction to Scientific Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Touted as the most influential idea in theology this book is a stripped down version of a three-volume tome. The first three chapters on background, nature, and reality are excellent and reasonably accessible.
5. Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science. New York: SUNY, 2001. Provides a philosophical defense for the clearly defined study of design. The writing is dense and technical, possibly to avoid pitfalls, but the result is to limit accessibility for non-specialists.
6. Rodney Holder, God, the Multiverse, and Everything: Modern Cosmology and the Argument from Design. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2004. Physicist-Priest Rodney Holder uses a mathematical probability analysis to probe whether fine tuning is best explained by steady state theory, multiverse theory, or divine fiat. An excellent summary of current arguments is