If evolution is a science, why do its advocates evangelize against philosophical and religious arguments for the value of human existence? Physics and math make no attempt to rebuttal these fields of thought. Most scholars in these
fields are more likely to philosophize on the merit of the spiritual dimension of human existence or hold a neutral position for religious positions. Yet, biological evolutionists and their nonprofessional followers advocate an anti-god, anti-religion and anti-human approach to viewing the world through evolutionary lenses. The world is viewed as creator and obeisance are given to the created things rather than a creator. Contempt for the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible is part of the course, in both academia, popular press, and public broadcasting when evolution is discussed. Why is this so when other fields of research do their job, with no regard for evolutionary paradigms or for attacking religious beliefs. Biological science has more to say about the complexity and specificity of the world than many other fields of research but it is the math and chemists and physicists that uncover and more often admit of reasons to believe in the metaphysics of religious persuasions.
Albert Einstein was a smart man. However, he was not an arrogant man. His understanding of the order and fine-tuning of our universe made him awestruck. He said, “Something deeply hidden had to be behind things.” Einstein did have an admiration for the universe in its subtle beauty and was amazed that the universe had laws that were inviolable; something not possible if it were a random event. It did not bring him to a belief in a personal God but the wonder and order of creation clearly convinced him of a hidden and unseen, possibly unknowable factor that was responsible for the existence of the universe. In his own words, Einstein put it this way,“The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books – a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.”
Guillermo González is noted for his rigor and dedication to astronomy and his voluminous peer-reviewed publications. He is even more famous for his recognition of the created order of the universe. He said this, “There’s no obvious reason to assume that the very same rare properties that allow for our existence would also provide the best overall setting to make discoveries about the world around us. We don’t think this is merely coincidental. It cries out for another explanation, an explanation that… points to a purpose and intelligent design in the cosmos.” – The Privileged Planet.
Joseph Fourier wrote in his The Analytical Theory of Heat, “There cannot be a language more universal and more simple, freer from errors and obscurities…more worthy to express the invariable relations of all natural things [than mathematics]. [It interprets] all phenomena by the same language, as if to attest the unity and simplicity of the plan of the universe, and to make still more evident that unchangeable order which presides over all natural causes”
Though not a friend of the Judeo-Christian position on God, Paul Davies, a significant player in cosmology and astronomy said this, “Now you may think I have written God entirely out of the picture. Who needs a God when the laws of physics can do such a splendid job? But we are bound to return to that burning question: Where do the laws of physics come from? And why those laws rather than some other set? Most especially: Why a set of laws that drives the searing, featureless gases coughed out of the big bang toward life and consciousness and intelligence and cultural activities such as religion, art, mathematics, and science?” Davies furthermore understood the delicate balance of the existence of our universe in particular, so many are the possibilities out of random processes that this universe and our time in this universe, he understood, to be proof of a far greater reality behind its existence. In his own words, he had this to say, “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life—almost contrived—you might say a ‘put-up job’.”
If evolution is a science, how is it that these smart guys really don’t give “randomonium” a chance to do its magic in the vacuum of space? Randomness by definition does not result in order but chaos. That is the nature of random. Repeatedly, hard science, real science proves this over and over. For evolutionary biologists, there is more hard evidence that would persuade any honest person that the “hidden mystery” of life is not in the molecules but in the mind that made them.
Even Carl Sagan, most known for his popular TV series, “COSMOS”, would not deny the existence of God, but could not bring himself to accept a personal deity having any anthropomorphic attributes let alone any real interest in mankind. He said this concerning atheism, “An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.”
IIya Prigogine a Russian born chemist and physicists and recipient of two Nobel prizes in chemistry said this, “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”
Another Nobel Laureate Steve Weinberg did not like religion in the least. He said, “‘Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Yet, having received his Nobel in the area of High Energy Physics in a study of the early universe, Weinberg also said this, “…how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.”
Christian de Duve wrote in his book, A Guided Tour of the Living Cell, and said, “If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.” He too was a Nobel Laureate in organic chemistry.
– Isaac Newton wrote simply, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” General Scholium, in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,
If evolution is science, how is it that the world of math and physics aren’t even skeptical about their conclusions? They are convinced save for a handful of men and women devoted to atheism. There is no doubt a connection between the study of physics, mathematics, astronomy, and theoretical cosmology that leads sensible scientists to admit that what they have discovered is rooted in the metaphysical. Metaphysical, not in the sense of undiscovered, but in the sense of intelligent, deliberate, cognizant, purposeful, and such that humankind was always at the very heart of the matter. There seems to be an honesty that cannot deny the obvious in the results of the work that these scientists do.
There is a cosmic connection with math, and physics that creates awe in researchers. These scientists quickly come to realize that we are not alone. John O’Keefe an astronomer at NASA wrote in Show me God,“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” Arno Penzias who won a Nobel Prize in physics said, “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”
From the words of Sir James Jeans who was a knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer, “There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter—not, of course, our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts.”
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” – George Greenstein and American astronomer wrote this in The Symbiotic, Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos.
We have heard from the “greatest of these” and now from one who traveled space and we hear, “When I went to the moon I was a pragmatic test pilot. But when I saw the planet Earth floating in the vastness of space the presence of divinity became almost palpable and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident.” – Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14 Astronaut). The theme is the same for those who gaze upon the stars and one who walked on the moon. There is obviousness to the facts of science that strikes the human mind with wonder and amazement; sometimes in the how the numbers add up and sometimes how the vectors align, even how the moon dust packs underfoot, but always it arrives at the same conclusion that God is an answer if not the Answer to existence.
As a molecular and cellular biologist, I find it appalling that biologists tenaciously cling to an outdated, worn out and useless theory that was postulated as a seductive possibility based upon facts that were commonly known at the time, only extrapolated to extreme measures that could not be tested and have since been proven biochemical unfeasible. If evolution was scientific there would be proof of its power and laws that govern its actions. We should be able to look at DNA and see it change in a manner that improves the species, not harm it. It is the mathematicians and physicists who have made fools of us all, and this by simply following their leads to the ultimate conclusion; God is! Meanwhile, biologists rush to stamp out free thought, critical thinking, and rational exchange, shouting God is dead, God is dead, as though this would somehow prove their theory to be more correct. And they have the audacity to call creationists lunatics!
What is the motive behind the ignorance of evolutionary biologists? There are several hidden agendas. One is to eliminate God from the equation. A second is like the first; eliminate morality from human responsibility. Think this is nuts? Listen to the confessions of one devoted evolutionist: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption … For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” (REPORT, June 1966. “Confession of Professed Atheist,” A. Huxley)
We close with this quote from one who was a devoted atheist and Professor of Mathematical Physics. Frank Tipler wrote in his book, The Physics of Immortality, “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics, as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”
If evolution is science the debate would be at a minimum instead of at an uproar with knowledgeable scientists who are creationists and brilliant mathematicians, information scientists, and intelligent design theorists who easily make havoc of the half-baked ideas of evolutionary biologists. Does it take a Ph.D. to realize that we are created beings? Does it take a Nobel Prize to arrive at the conclusion that the universe was made for us, that we are not alone and never were and that we have a special responsibility to recognize and give recognition to the Hidden One for our existence? How long will the squeaking wheel get oiled until it is silenced? Biologists, evolutionists, in particular, need to come clean with what is obvious to most of us. I am not asking them to become disciples of Christ, just yet. That is another story I have to tell. What I am asking for is a rebirth of an honest assessment of scientific findings and publications that are forthright with meaningful conclusions. This is, after all, what science really is.