Astounding Leaps of Faith

The most passionate proponent of evolution in my life was the father of my best childhood friends and a man whom I deeply respect and love dearly. He is a scientist, with a PhD in chemistry and effective PhDs in a variety of other subjects and disciplines. One day when we were in college, while around the table at a meal, the subject turned to some amazing aspect of a swallow's flight. My friend's father said, "Isn't Evolution amazing?" He didn't make the statement as a simple rhetorical question. He expressed it with deep reverence and awe, almost worship...as it should be. Isn't that our natural response when we deeply contemplate some aspect of nature or beauty or art or music? Who can ponder the stunning intricacy of a simple cell and not at least say, "Wow." Who, upon appreciating a beautiful symphonic performance, cannot be moved by the experience? We are surrounded at all times, and even live within (our bodies), such mind-boggling complexity of engineering and beauty of form, that the mind cannot grasp it, nor the heart contain enough admiration.

In spite of this very natural "religious" response, we are taught that evolution and the whole naturalistic worldview are true because they are based solely on scientific facts that have been objectively discovered and experimentally proven. The naturalistic worldview does not rely upon miracles or the supernatural to explain itself. Science rejects these tired, sentimental anachronisms of primitive civilizations. And yet this bold claim is betrayed by the facts themselves. Consider the day, millions upon millions of years ago, when Chance Mutation brought forth not one, but two sets of highly complex, highly internally interdependent, complimentary systems of reproduction that marked that fateful transition, in a single generation, from asexual to sexual reproduction. Myriad, beneficial mutations over tens of thousands of years have brought about the prototypes of full reproductive systems in every member of the species. Now at last, key mutations have occurred in two distinct animals. One error in the millions of genetic instructions that have occurred in the two beasts, now male and female, would have meant sterility. And consider that Chance made those two sets of beneficial and perectly complimentary random mutations occur within sufficient geographic proximity for the new couple to meet, and then to know what to do before thier periods of fertility or their very lives ended. What can this event be called except "miraculous?" Then consider the basic propositon of the naturalistic worldview that says that order comes from chaos, perfection from imperfection, energy from rest, etc. In light of the facts that all stars are using up their fuel, that the rotation of the planet is slowing, and of our day to day experience of having to work to overcome all forms of decay, what can this fundamental contrary proposition be called but "supernatural?"

The scientist may argue with my simplifications, but the point is that there is a false dichotomy between faith and science. The naturalistic worldview requires astounding leaps of faith in order to fill the huge gaps between scientific knowledge and the simplest contemplations of origins. Faith is rarely blind; it almost always has an object. The Naturalist places his faith in reason and logic, and his ability to use these tools to discover the answers to all questions, and is largely justified in doing so. But there is a fatal flaw. In order for the inferences, observations, logic, reasonings, and calculations of science to work, they must be universal. They must apply always and everywhere, or else experiments cannot be repeated, space probes cannot reach their targets, and the simplest communications of truths cannot happen. The laws of rational thought, logic, and mathematics must be objective and therefore transcendent to any person, culture, species, or time. And yet, evolutionary science tells us that Reason, Thought, and Logic are mere biochemical activities of the brain. They are, however convenient to us, only what our brains happen to be like and how they happen to work. And yet this cannot be. If our brains happened to function differently, such that logic and reason were impossible or were random, there would still be measurements of objective reality. Whether a man can observe, infer, reason, and even calculate the physics of a three hundred kilogram boulder falling on him from 10.72 meters above will not change the inevitable outcome. So the naturalistic scientist is left saying that our brains are, by chance, fitted to comprehend and manipulate reality; thus leaving the very foundations of humanity permanently inexplicable. Just like on the ultimate question of origins, science tells us to accept by faith that the nature of our thinking combined with the existence of Logic and Reason just... is. And here, the faith is truly blind, since the Naturalistic worldview rejects a priori an ultimate Object for faith.

Now with regard to faith, the Christian worldview is no different. It requires faith in the God who just... is. But the faith is not blind because the ultimate Object is known. The Christian worldview begins a priori "In the beginning God." Since God is the Creator of the universe, and since He created it according to His own, logical, reasonable, and mathematical nature, and since He created man "in His own image" with the similar capacities to reason and compute, science is possible. The laws of nature exist because they do so on purpose, and not by chance. The Christian worldview provides a logical, dependable framework for scientific inquiry. But most importantly, the Creator God is the Object properly fitted to the feelings of awe and worship that arise from pondering the swallow's flight, the intricacy of the cell, and the beauty of a symphonic performance.

Humpty Dumpty

I was responding to a dear friend in email who is having difficulty reconciling scientific facts and observations with the supernatural events of the bible, specifically with regard to the creation of the earth.

I was just reading some great essays by C.S. Lewis and had an epiphany. I think you are taking things way too literally. By that, I do not mean taking the Scripture too literally. I think we don’t take them literally enough. But I think you are taking the natural order too literally. Imagine if I showed you some gorgeous Rembrandt painting with vivid colors and hyper-realistic rendering. Then I gave you a sheet of paper and a charcoal pencil and said, "Go for it! You can make a picture just like the Rembrandt!" Of course you would look at the pencil and the paper and instantly recognize that the tools were not adequate for the task. In a sense, I believe that is the problem with trying to explain all of Creation with the incredibly limited palette of modern science. You are trying to squeeze all the marvels we see in the universe into a very limited toolbox and then insist that it all came about from tools (such as Time, Matter, Space, etc.) in that toolbox. Your thoughts about floods, geologic timescales, creation accounts vs. scientific cosmology, are all tightly confined inside a tiny toolbox that is wholly inadequate.

In an essay entitled Miracles C.S. Lewis said that the entire story of modern science can be summarized by the words "Humpty Dumpty was falling." Science can only provide information by observation and we are, cosmologically speaking, observing Humpty Dumpty’s fall. We have no information about how he got on the wall, nor where he or the wall came from, nor what will happen once he crashes to the ground. Further, we cannot imagine a mechanism by which he could ever be put back together again. Likewise, all of the observed universal order of matter is winding down. It is moving from some unknown state of being wound up toward some unknown, but inferred, state of being totally unwound. Science cannot even begin to speculate how the universal order was wound up in the first place. And yet this cannot be the way things have always been from all eternity, or else things would already be wound down into total disorder and total stillness.

Now look at the Gospels. Jesus gave us glimpses into other, formerly unknown, aspects of our universe. First, He displayed power over the created order, but completely consistent with that order. If you look at the miracles He performed, they were not fantastic, fairy tale things like making trees talk, turning people into toads, or some other truly magical thing. (again thanks to Lewis’ essay) Instead, they were consistent with nature but compressed in time or space in some way. Physical processes were reversed or accelerated to heal. Existing elements of the natural palette were combined to turn water into wine and multiply food. Note that He did not wave His hand with a wizardly flourish over the five thousand and cause meals to appear on everyone’s laps. C.S. Lewis points out that this does not diminish the miraculous aspect of the acts, but instead, establishes Jesus’ lordship over the created order. The King came into His own and was able to use His own creation in ways that we may never figure out. Second, we see glimpses into previously unknown aspects of space and time. A boat and Philip are instantaneously transported from one place to another. Jesus and Peter are able to walk on water. Later Jesus is able to enter locked rooms and defy gravity, while still having a physical, touchable form that eats. Isn’t it noteworthy that He made such a point of showing the disciples that His new body was not a purely spiritual ghost, but something altogether new? So before His resurrection we see that He is King, Lord, and Master over His creation, and after His resurrection we are given a sneak preview into other dimensions, or senses, and something entirely new to our experience.

Now, the "scientific" disposition may be offended by such an appeal to unobservable processes and dimensions to explain the seemingly fantastic aspects of the Scripture. But is this really so unscientific? Lewis pointed out that Schrodinger wanted seven dimensions to explain the simplest atom. How can the mind grasp seven dimensions? Quantum physics and astrophysics are constantly coming up with fantastical constructs to explain things. Compare dark matter and black holes, and the weak force and Schrodinger’s effect, to the seemingly fantastic events of the bible. Yes, some of the fantastic constructs of quantum physics came about through experimentation, but does that make them any less bizarre? The truth is stranger than fiction. In the very same way the things of the bible are proved out in our lives through the experimentation of living life in the Kingdom of God; where we discover that the Living God is every bit as real as the unobservable aspects of atomic physics.

So the issue comes down to this: what presuppositions do we bring to the table? The secular humanist, for reasons of his own, presumes that there is no God. Once God is out of the picture, he is free to speculate and even discover things that are genuinely supernatural (to begin with) and just say that his understanding of the universe has been expanded. He can say that there are seven (or more) dimensions without being labeled a magician, a witch doctor, or a religious fanatic. As a Christian, the presupposition I bring to the table is "In the beginning God." That presupposition, just like the secular humanist, completely biases and forms my understanding of reality. But I am at a great advantage. I have an ultimate explanation for cosmological questions, which is proved out daily in my life of faith. With this presupposition, I am free to speculate with the same "scientific toolbox" as the humanist, knowing that my discoveries will reveal further aspects of the Creation and further glimpses into the nature of the King of Creation. Note that my worldview can contain and explain the natural and the supernatural; including those "supernatural" things such as love, justice, mercy, reason, logic, etc. But the purely naturalistic worldview cannot explain the supernatural, not even those non-physical things (love, logic, etc.) that are most important to humans.

So how did the earth get created in six days? Who knows? It will be exciting to one day find out from the Maker Himself. Maybe the earth was folded into another dimension of the space time fabric during its formation and when it was unfolded into our space time fabric it is millions of years old? Note that I am using the language of science and science fiction. If I were a secular humanist physicist, no one would bat an eye at my wild theory. Einstein’s theories of space and time are just as fantastic on the surface. I have no problem with accepting the accounts of the bible at face value. In fact, I fully expect that science will "discover" things in my lifetime that make them all the more plausible. The core issue is that I am presuming God and moving forward from there.

In conclusion, it is very important to note that science cannot speak meaningfully about anything that really matters in life. What can science say about loving your wife, or about reason itself, or art or music or beauty or justice or mercy or...? But the God of the bible can not only speak meaningfully about those things, He truly has the Words of Life.

--Thaine