This post was written by Mark Hansard on February 4, 2008
In a fascinating op-ed piece for the New York Times a few months ago, physicist Paul Davies ruminates on the “faith” that scientists have regarding the logical order and mathematical elegance of what makes the universe tick. He observes that scientists, in going about their research, assume that the universe is ordered and intelligible in the first place, yet they refuse to ask “Why?” Why is the universe as ordered and intelligible as it is? One reason scientists won’t ask that question, according to Davies, is that “it’s not a scientific question.”
I certainly think they are right: it is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. It is a question that scientists used to be comfortable asking because they did not separate philosophy from science, but recognized that both were intertwined. Science cannot be performed without making a whole set of philosophical assumptions, about reality, about the universe, and this was common knowledge a hundred years ago. And yet in the academy today there is so much emphasis on keeping science separate from any other discipline that the philosophical underpinnings of science are largely forgotten.
Davies is to be commended for bringing our attention to the fact that science is intertwined with philosophical, even religious, questions. Interestingly, he admits that Christian theological assumptions were behind the beginnings of modern science. To my knowledge, Davies is not a Christian, or even a theist. Unfortunately, at the end of the article he falls prey to the same old, tired refrain: that if there isn’t a scientific answer to these questions, there is no answer at all.
This post was written by Randy Newman on March 19, 2007
We should constantly search out tools for sharing the gospel with those around us. Those called to the academy especially need academically credible, intellectually rich works to commend to people in their spheres of influence. You may have already heard about Francis Collins’ The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. This book has both positive contributions and substantive drawbacks, but in my opinion, it’s a book that is well worth the risk.
Francis Collins is the head of the Human Genome Project, which finished mapping the human genome in 2003. He also leads several research projects at the National Institutes of Health. Prior to this he helped to discover the genetic misspellings that cause cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, and Huntington’s disease.
His book begins with his own personal story of faith, from an agnostic/atheist upbringing through a rigorous academic training in science to conversion to Christianity during his residency for medical school. He honestly shares both his intellectual questions and emotional/spiritual roadblocks. For the non-Christian who sincerely wants to interact with the claims of the gospel, this book could serve in ways that other books fall short. Collins respects the intellect and the academic process while pointing people to an intelligent, informed faith.
Collins’ major influence in his search for faith was C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity along with several other works of the Oxford Don. Thus, if nothing else, readers of The Language of God may pick up one of Lewis’ books and find a fuller treatment of the gospel there. That may turn out to be the greatest contribution of Collins’ book.
In the introduction, Dr. Collins states, “So here is the central question of this book: In this modern era of cosmology, evolution, and the human genome, is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews? I answer with a resounding yes!��? His style is winsome and gracious. Indeed, when I heard him speak on the topic of his book, he treated critiques (from both atheistic scientists and fundamentalist Christians) with gentleness, patience, and respect.
If there is any weakness, it is in Collins’ handling of Genesis. He clearly identifies his approach to the creation account as “theistic evolution.” (He prefers the term “biologos” but I seriously doubt this label will catch on). He fairly but briefly tells of other views – atheism, agnosticism, creationism, and intelligent design – and why none of them satisfy him.
But his approach, while solving some difficulties in the science-faith nexus, leaves some (me, for example) less than “richly satisfied.” The thorny details of Genesis’ six days still needs deeper thought than Collins presents in this brief book. One gets the idea that he certainly has given the text deeper thought but doesn’t display all that wrestling in these pages. Perhaps this reflects his humility and willingness to leave such debates to Old Testament commentators. If so, I respect him for that.
Is Collins’ book worth the risk? In other words, even if I more closely align myself with the intelligent design movement than theistic evolution, should I give copies of The Language of God to scientifically minded skeptics? Yes. I certainly think so and plan to do so as often as God leads me to open doors and receptive hearts. There are many around us who believe the only real options are atheistic science or shallow faith. Well meaning Christians have backed them into this anti-intellectual corner.
This new book helps reopen issues that never should have been closed.
This post was written by Steve Faivre on December 4, 2006
The prospect of extra-terrestrial life has always stirred the muse of poets, and increasingly, it provokes the research of scientists.
Bruce Jakosky, a professor of geological sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, has written an essay, Is Anybody Else Out There?, published in The Chronicle Review (October 6, 2006, B14-15). His essay illustrates the need for integrating one’s academic scholarship within the framework of a Christian worldview.
Jakosky writes, “Learning about the origin of the universe tells us how we got here, learning about other planetary systems helps us understand our own planetary system, and learning whether there might be life elsewhere helps us understand the nature and meaning of life here on earth? (B15, emphasis mine).
However, the implications of this line of research have led some to existential despair. He quotes a common saying in the scientific community: “There are two possibilities. Maybe we’re alone. Maybe we’re not. Both are equally frightening? (B15). He continues,
It would be truly mind-boggling to determine that we are the only intelligent life in our galaxy. That knowledge would have profound implications for understanding our connection to the world around us and for understanding the nature of humanity and what it means to be human.
At the same time, it would be just as amazing to find even a single example of non-Earth life on any other planet, whether it be the simplest conceivable microbe or an intelligence with whom we might (or might not) be able to communicate. By itself, the knowledge of life’s existence elsewhere would change how we view ourselves, our planet, and the universe as a whole. (B15)
I’m agnostic on the issue of life (even intelligent life) elsewhere in the universe. Someday science may establish extra-terrestrial life as fact. But the existence (or non-existence) of life beyond this Earth requires the revelation of the Scriptures to properly interpret the significance of that fact.
The Scriptures declare that mankind was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28). This image sets mankind in a class apart from other creatures – one must assume regardless of where they are found. The Scriptures also declare that the eternal Son of God entered history with a human nature as Jesus (John 1:1-3, 14).
The Son of God now partakes of human nature as the Son of Man for the rest of eternity.
Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. (Revelation 1:17b-18)
Therefore, the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life has no real bearing on human significance. It is something we can know without the benefit of a radio telescope.
|
