Where is God in Science Chemistry Department Seminar, Calvin College, Oct' 9, 2003 Loren Haarsma Car

1
Where is God in Science?Chemistry Department
Seminar, Calvin College, Oct. 9, 2003Loren
Haarsma (Cartoon by Berke Breathed, Bloom
County Tales Too Ticklish to Tell.)
2
Where is God in Science?

• Natural Laws, Random Events,
• Miracles and Design, as
• Viewed from Both Science and Theology
• Loren Haarsma
• Chemistry Department Seminar, Calvin College,
  Oct. 9, 2003
• http//www.calvin.edu/lhaarsma/WhereIsGodInScienc
  e2003Oct.ppt
• http//www.calvin.edu/lhaarsma/NatLawChanceMiracl
  es2003.pdf
• http//www.calvin.edu/lhaarsma/SelfOrgComplexity2
  003.pdf

3
1. Natural Laws

• Sir Isaac Newton discovered that a simple law
  could explain both
• the behavior of falling objects on Earth
• the orbits of planets and stars

4

• Newton believed the universality and simplicity
  of this Law of Gravity was evidence for Gods
  design.
• When Newton calculated planetary orbits, he
  thought they would become unstable after a few
  hundred years due to mutual planetary attraction.
  
• One proposal was that God occasionally sent
  through the solar system a comet with just the
  right mass and trajectory to keep planetary
  orbits stable.

5

• Some years later, Pierre de Laplace showed that
  planetary orbits were stable for much, much
  longer periods of time.
• An often-repeated anecdote
• Napoleon asked "Monsieur Laplace, why wasn't the
  Creator mentioned in your book on Celestial
  Mechanics?"
• Laplace replied "Sir, I have no need for that
  hypothesis."

6
If the anecdote is true, what might Laplace have
meant?

• Some possibilities
• I dont need God at all. (doubtful)
• Im a better scientist than Newton. I
  calculated the planetary orbits better than he
  did. (perhaps)
• Once we have a scientific, mechanistic
  explanation for a natural event, we dont need
  God to explain it. (the most common
  interpretation)

7

• Suppose you were alive when planetary orbit
  stability was still not understood, so that it
  was still unknown whether or not it was necessary
  for God to occasionally correct planetary orbits
  with precisely-timed comets.
• Would your rather have planetary orbits proved to
  be unstable, and therefore have evidence for
  God's occasional remarkable intervention?
• Or would you rather have planetary orbits proved
  to be stable over long periods of time?
• Why?

8
Would your rather have had planetary orbits
proved to be stable or unstable?

• In my experience, few Christians choose
  unstable. (Why not? After all, it would look
  like evidence for Gods existence.)
• Most Christians answer stable. (Typically say,
  It seems like a better design.)
• If natural laws such as Newtons Law of Gravity
  seem to run for thousands or millions of years
  without apparent need for intervention, then
  where is God in science?

9
Science is more than just the search for
natural laws. More broadly, it includes

• The process of science (scientific method)
• Discoveries of science (how nature works, the
  laws of nature)
• Basis for science (why science is possible)
• Philosophical, ethical, religious inferences of
  science (meta-scientific questions)
• Motives, ethics, goals of doing science
• Ones worldview, ones beliefs about God, can
  strongly affect ones approach to the latter
  three categories.
• But where is God in the first two categories?

10

• One common answer God isnt in those parts of
  science.
• These natural laws may have originally been
  decreed by God, but it appears that he has since
  left the universe to evolve according to them and
  does not now intervene in it. --Stephen
  Hawking, A Brief History of Time
• Hawking describes a very common, but unbiblical,
  view of natural laws.

11

• (Psalm 10419-21, NIV)
• The moon marks off the seasons
• and the sun knows when to go down.
• You bring darkness, it becomes night,
• and all the beasts of the forest prowl.
• The lions roar for their prey
• and seek their food from God.
• The sun rises and they steal away
• they return and lie down in their dens.
• Note the same events are described both in terms
  of natural events and divine action.

12
1. Natural Laws

• Scientific View
• Understandable, universal, predictable patterns
  of cause and effect in nature which we discover
  through experiment and theory.
• Theological View
• God is just as much in charge of events which
  happen naturally as miracles.
• God is not absent from events which we can
  explain scientifically rather, natural laws
  describe how God typically governs creation.

13
2. Random Events

• Many events have outcomes which include an
  element of randomness. They are modeled
  probabilistically, not deterministically. For
  example
• Throwing dice
• The weather
• Progression of a disease
• Genetic mutations
• Quantum-mechanical events

14
The god Chance

• In popular culture ? and in many debates about
  science and religion ? the term chance is used
  to argue that an event was undirected, that the
  event must lack meaning or purpose.
• Some shrink from the conclusion that the human
  species was not designed, has no purpose, and is
  the product of mere mechanical mechanisms ? but
  this seems to be the message of evolution.
• --Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial The Case
  for Evolution

15
Scientific usage of chance

• The final outcome cannot be completely predicted
  in terms of initial conditions and natural laws.
• Unpredictable in practice
• Throwing dice
• The weather
• Progression of a disease
• Unpredictable in principle
• Quantum-mechanical events

16
The Bible on chance

• The lot is cast into the lap, but its every
  decision is from the Lord.
• Proverbs 1633 (NIV)

17
2. Random Events

• Scientific View
• In complex or quantum mechanical systems, initial
  conditions and natural laws only allow us to
  specify the final outcome probabilistically, not
  fully deterministically.
• Theological View
• God is still in charge.
• May be one way God can subtly interact with
  creation. (e.g. by selecting an outcome)
• May also indicate Gods gift of capabilities and
  perhaps a gift of limited freedom to creation.
• Analogies to genetic algorithms used in
  engineering and art.

18
3. Miracles

• In the Bible, the term is used for
• Unusual events with special timing and purpose
• Theological significance explained to witnesses
• Might or might not be unexplainable in terms of
  natural processes.
• In science-and-religion discussions, typically
  refers to (This is how I will use the term.)
• An event unexplainable in terms of natural
  processes
• Presumed supernatural activity.

19

• Some people argue that science disproves the
  possibility of miracles.
• Some people try to use science to prove that
  miracles exist.

20

• Some people argue that science disproves the
  possibility of miracles.
• Some people try to use science to prove that
  miracles exist.
• A realistic understanding of science avoids
  either extreme.

21

• Scientists try to build empirical models of past
  and present events based on known natural laws
  plus information about the conditions before,
  during, and after the event.
• Attempts to build empirical models meet with
  varying degrees of success. For example
• Explained events (e.g. supernovae)
• Partially explained events (e.g. zygotic
  development)
• Unexplainable events, with good reasons to rule
  out models employing only known natural laws.
  (e.g. source of the Big Bang)

22
How do scientists deal with unexplainable
events?

• No consensus. Individual scientists could reach
  one of (at least) five meta-scientific
  conclusions
• Unknown natural law
• Supernatural event
• Super-human technology
• Improbable event simply occurred
• Improbable event in one of Many Universes
• These five are very different from each other
  philosophically and religiously, but play
  virtually identical roles in scientific
  arguments.

23
Unexplainable events

• Historical example
• Late 1800s ? unknown energy source of the sun.
  (Later discovered to be nuclear fusion.)
• Modern examples
• The source of the Big Bang.
• The apparent fine tuning of the laws of nature
  for life.
• There are some cosmologists today advocating each
  of those five meta-scientific conclusions.
• Most scientists classify first life on earth as
  partially explained, although a few argue that
  it should be considered unexplainable.

24
Consider the origin of first life on earth.

• Which way do you hope the research will
  eventually turn out?
• Would you rather have first life on earth
  convincingly placed in the unexplainable
  category (with strong arguments against any model
  employing known natural laws)?
• Or would your rather have first life on earth
  eventually be explained (or at least convincingly
  partially explained) in terms of natural laws?
• Why?

25
3. Miracles

• Scientific View
• Science makes progress by trying to build
  empirical models for events based on known
  natural laws (or hypothesizing new extensions of
  natural laws).
• Events which are unexplainable via known
  natural laws admit several possible meta-physical
  explanations (not just supernatural).
• Science cannot prove supernatural activity took
  place.
• Science cannot rule out supernatural activity as
  impossible.

26
3. Miracles

• Theological View
• God can do miracles, which could be per-ceived as
  scientifically unexplainable events.
• An unexplainable event might be a miracle, but
  might also be God creating and governing by
  as-yet-unknown natural laws.
• Scientifically explaining a previously
  unexplainable event does not diminish Gods
  governance.
• It might be tempting to look for scientifically
  unexplainable events, but it can just as
  God-glorifying ? and sometimes may even be more
  theologically defensible ? to look for new
  explanations in terms of natural laws.

27
4. Design

• Intuitively, and religiously, when we look at
  creation, it seems beautiful and well-designed.
• What we learn from science generally reinforces
  those feelings.

28

• The modern Intelligent Design (ID) movement
  makes two types of arguments
• The apparent fine-tuning of natural laws is
  argued as evidence that the entire universe was
  designed.
• The complexity of biological life is argued to be
  unexplainable in terms of (unaided) natural
  processes.

29
Fine-tuning of Natural Laws

• If the fundamental particle masses, force
  strengths, or initial conditions of the universe
  were just a little different, there would be no
  stars, or no atoms, or no complex molecules no
  life.
• The laws of nature are fine-tuned not only for
  life to exist, but also for atoms, stars, and
  planets with oceans and atmospheres to
  self-assemble via natural processes.

30
4. Fine-tuning of Natural Laws

• Scientific View
• Currently unexplainable. For now, we dont
  have a more fundamental scientific theory which
  determines these physical values.
• An area of interest and ongoing research.
• Theological View
• Fits well with biblical picture of God the
  creator as unconstrained, powerful, purposeful.
  Leads believers to a response of awe and worship.
• Unwise to hang too much evangelistic weight on
  the argument, but its a great thought-provoker.

31
4. Biological Complexity and Design

• Philosophical View
• The ID community makes a plausibility argument
  (not a proof) that we should conclude an event or
  object is designed if
• It is high improbable that it could have happened
  via purely natural processes .
• It has a pattern or payoff which leads us to
  conclude that it was not purely random.
• (Any particular long string of random characters
  is low-probability, but an apparently random
  string of characters which, when run through a
  decoder ring, gives the location of a treasure,
  was probably designed.)

32
4. Biological Complexity and Design

• Scientific View
• ID community has published arguments and
  calculations that it is highly improbable for
  biological complexity to evolve via natural
  processes. (Specified- or irreducible-complex
  ity)
• The scientific community generally considers
  these published calculations to be simplistic and
  flawed. Consensus is that complexity can evolve
  under various conditions.
• However, the evolution of complexity is a
  challenging scientific problem ? some recent
  progress, but many remaining questions.

33
4. Biological Complexity and Design

• Theological View
• God could have chosen to create biological
  complexity via miracles or natural processes.
• For various reasons, some Christians have a
  strong preference for one answer or the other.
• Scientific progress eventually should classify
  biological complexity explained or
  unexplainable.
• The word design should not be equated with the
  claim that complexity could not have evolved.
  God formed atoms, stars and planets via natural
  processes, and we are correct to call them
  designed.
• Apologetically, design points to a God, but not
  necessarily to Jesus Christ.

34
Possible tension between two ID arguments

• The laws of nature are fine-tuned for atoms,
  stars, and planets with oceans and atmospheres to
  self-assemble via natural processes. This is
  taken as evidence in favor of design.
• If the laws of nature are fine-tuned for
  biological cells and biological complexity to
  self-assemble via natural evolutionary
  processes, should this be taken as evidence for,
  or against, design?

35
Where is God in science?

• Partial answer
• Predictable events God created consistently
  governs natural processes, which makes science
  possible.
• Random events God can control God can use them
  to let creation explore its possibilities.
• Surprising events God can do miracles, science
  does not exclude them, but neither can science
  prove miracles, and surprising events arent
  always miracles.
• Design God set up fundamental laws and particles
  that develop into an abundant array of physical
  and biological structures.

36
(No Transcript)
37
Appendix I II slides

• I. Christianity as a foundation for science
• II. A way to approach apparent conflicts
  between science and theology

38
Scientists of different religious worldviews can
work side-by-side.

• To do science, you must make certain worldview
  assumptions.
• These worldview assumptions cannot be deduced
  from science itself, but arise from culture and
  religion.
• Worldviews which are very different from each
  other can sometimes share a subset of assumptions
  which are a foundation for doing science

39
Some worldview assumptions are NOT helpful for
science(Bill Waterson, Calvin and Hobbes)
40
Some worldview assumptions necessary to do
science

• Events in natural world typically have
  (immediate) natural causes.
• Linear (not circular) view of time
• These natural causes and effects have regular,
  repeatable, universal patterns.
• We can, at least partly, understand these
  patterns
• Logic and theory are not enough experiments are
  needed.
• Science is worth doing.

41
Worldview assumptions Christian
necessary for science beliefs

• Natural events have natural causes.
• Linear view of time
• Causes and effects have regular, universal
  patterns.
• We can understand these patterns.
• Experiments are needed.
• Science is worth doing.

• Creation is not pantheistic.
• Time is linear, not circular.
• God governs in ways consistent, not capricious.
• We are made in Gods image, suitable for this
  world.
• Gods creativity is free we are limited and
  fallen.
• Nature is Gods creation we are called to study
  it.

42
Christianity as a foundation for science

• A Christian does not have to pretend to be an
  atheist to do science. Science arises naturally
  from a Christian worldview.
• Christianity is not a separate realm from
  science, but provides a fundamental foundation
  for how and why we do science.
• A scientist does not have to be a Christian to do
  science, but does hold a subset of
  philosophical/worldview assumptions in common
  with Christians.
• Scientists of many religions can work
  side-by-side to study the properties,
  functioning, and history of the natural world.

43
Science and religion in conflict?

• Yes, there have been, and are, conflicts of
  ideas, but it is too simplistic to see these as
  conflicts between science and religion per se.
• Scientific and religious ideas always have
  philosophical, cultural and historical contexts
• Some apparent conflicts are due to faulty logic.

44
Some apparent conflicts are due to faulty logic

• requires or implies
• a religion a scientific
  fact
• Example
• Christianity requires the Earth to be fixed
• Science proves the Earth moves
• Therefore, Christianity is false
• Possible responses to the flawed conclusion
• Reject the scientific claim
• Reject the arrow (the requires line of
  reasoning)

45
Christian framework for approaching apparent
conflicts the Two Books metaphor Nature
Scripture

• Belgic Confession Article 2
• The Means by Which We Know God
• We know him by two means
• First, by the creation, preservation, and
  government of the universe, since that universe
  is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which
  all creatures, great and small, are as letters to
  make us ponder the invisible things of God his
  eternal power and his divinity
• Second, he makes himself known to us more openly
  by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need
  in this life, for his glory and for the salvation
  of his own.

46
The Two Books metaphor Nature Scripture
47
The Two Books metaphor Nature Scripture

• A tool for resolving apparent conflicts between
  science theology
• Hope
• Nature and Scripture are both from God and must
  agree (all truth is Gods truth)
• Strategy
• Dont throw out one and keep the other (dont
  ignore some of Gods revelation).
• Keep pursuing both science and theology until the
  underlying unity of Nature and Scripture becomes
  clear.

48
Science and religion in conflict?

• While specific scientific claims (or
  philosophical claims motivated by science) might
  conflict with specific religious claims, there is
  no general conflict between science and religion.
• The Two Books metaphor provides Christian
  framework for dealing with specific conflicts.