Introduction to Apologetics II:  Science and Christianity

 

I.  Introductory Remarks

A.  Theological Issues

1.  “The Modern era has been called the era of science.  Whether o r not this is true, one thing seems clear –scientific ideas have had an impact on what people believe and how they see the world, as well as on the methods of investigation they think ought to be employed in our search for knowledge.  If Christians are going to develop and propagate an integrated worldview, they must work together to integrate their theological beliefs and the assertions of science that seem reasonable.”  -J.P. Moreland  Creation Hypothesis p11

2.  The bible is not a purely metaphysical book.  Therefore, it will have claims that overlap with the field of science.  E.g. creation

3.  Science and Theology sometimes conflict and sometimes are in concordance.

4.  While it is important to maintain the doctrine of inerrancy, it is important to keep a keen eye on the quality of our hermeneutic.  History, anthropology, and archeology can all give significant aid to our understanding of the bible.  So can science.

5.  Science is by nature a dynamic body of knowledge.  Falsifiable hypotheses are sometimes falsified.  Therefore, we need to keep a keen eye on the evidence for current scientific theories and be careful not to attach it too strongly to theology.  The church made this mistake in holding too tightly to Ptolemy’s views on astronomy, which would later be overthrown by Copernicus and Kepler.

6.  Primary vs. Secondary causation:  God parting the Red Sea

Exo 14:21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22 and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.

a.  Primary Causation:  “God parted the Red Sea.”

b.  Secondary Causation:  “A strong east wind parted the Red Sea.”

c.  Secondary causation does not negate primary causation… more on this when we talk about Intelligent Design.  Be careful not to be defensive when science attempts to describe miracles.

II.  Astronomical Evidence for God’s existence.

A.  Big Bang cosmology is support for the second premise of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.

B.  Fine-tuning argument is currently the best Teleological (design) argument for the existence of God.

1.  Cosmological Constants and initial conditions of the universe

From Hugh Ross in The Creation Hypothesis p 160ff

1.  Strong nuclear force constant

if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable

if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

2.  Weak nuclear force constant

if larger:  too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning, no explusion of heavy elements from stars.

If smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

3.  Gravitational force constant

if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly

if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production

4.  Electromagnetic force constant

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable to fission

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

5.  Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning

if smaller: no stars more than .9 solar masses, hence no heavy element production

6.  Ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

7.  Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

if larger: electromagnetisim would have dominated gravity, preventing galaxy, star and planet formation.

if smaller: electromagnetisim would have dominated gravity, preventing galaxy, star and planet formation.

8.  Expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation

if smaller: universe would have collapsed prior to star formation

Etc… etc..  25.

“The degree of fine-tunedness for many of these parameters is utterly amazing.  For example, if the strong nuclear force were even .3 percent stronger or 2 percent weaker, the universe would never be able to support life.  More astounding yet, the ground state energies for 4He, 8Be,12C and 16O cannot be higher or lower with respect to each other by more than 4 percent without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen and/or carbon for any kind of life.  The expansion rate of the universe is even more sensitive. It must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 1055.  Clear some ingenious Designer must be involved in the physics of the universe.”  Ibid, P163

2.  Fine-tuning of the galaxy-sun-earth-moon system for life support

3.  All these numbers are literally astronomical such that the probability of any life in the universe is exquisitely small. 

4.  Some would counter with some sort of anthropic principle:  “We should not be surprised that we find the universe is capable of supporting life otherwise we would not be around to observe it.”

5.  Craig’s Analogy: There are one hundred sharpshooters aimed a fellow.  They fire.  Immediately afterwards, if the man is alive, shouldn’t he be surprised to find that he’s alive?  He may suppose that he was lucky, or that blanks were fired or the sharpshooters deliberately missed.  What is irrational is for him to think, “of course they didn’t kill me, otherwise I wouldn’t be around to notice I’m alive,” for the expected result should have been “I’m dead and I’m not around to observe it.” 

6.  My example:  If a fisherman with a fishing net with holes the size of a football field were to haul in a fish bigger than a football field, he should not be surprised at the size of the fish, but he should be surprised that he hauls in anything at all!

III.  Biology and Christianity

A.  Different Views Among Christians

1.  Young Earth vs. Old Earth (day-age theorists)

a.  Both are possible interpretations of Gen 1 from the text alone.

b.  Therefore, Day-Age theorists should not be assumed to compromise inerrancy.

2.  The unifying focus in the current movement is towards Intelligent Design

3.  Evolution

a.  Theistic Evolution: God worked through Darwinian Evolution

b.  Progressive Creation: God progressively created life’s major groups in different time periods.  (compatible with Day-Age theory)

c.  Global Deluge:  The flood during Noah’s time explains the fossil record.  Also, it would account for non-uniformity of radiological decay.

B.  Darwinian Evolution –a historical science.

1.  Two Principles that are not directly falsifiable

a.  Common descent of all species

b.  Different species came about by mutation and natural selection (survival of the fittest.)

c.  Macroevolution vs. Microevolution

Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species

(Kings Play Chess on Fat Girls’ Stomachs)

2.  Not just adaptation inherited (Lamarck)

a.  Darwinism does not suppose humans descended from apes that descended from reptiles.

b.  Darwinism supposes that humans and apes had a common ancestor.

3.  Two Major Schools of Thought among Darwinists

a.  Gradualists (majority)

-molecular mechanism of change is almost inconceivable

b.  Punctuated Equilibrium (“Punk-Eeeks,” Stephen Jay Gould)

c.  Phillip E. Johnson Darwin On Trial plays off difficulties in both theories

d.  Most Significant Problems for Darwinian Evolution:

Cambrian explosion, inverted cone of diversity, stasis, consistent lack of intermediary fossils, lack of a clear molecular mechanism (Behe, Yockey).

e.  Origin of Life is a major problem, but technically not part of Darwinian Evolution

C.  Kurt P. Wise’s Approach –Intelligent Design is a better explanation for the evidence

Macroevolution

Intelligent Creator

Adult Similarities

Adult Similarities

Embryological Similarities

Embryological Similarities

Molecular Similarities

Molecular Similarities

Correspondence of Similarities

Correspondence of Similarities

Embryological recapitulation

Evidences?

Embryological recapitulation

Evidences

Counterevidences

Nested Hierarchy of Life

Nested Hierarchy of Life

Nested hierarchy of complexity

Large morphological gaps

Molecular discontinuities

Higher group stasis

Startomorphic Intermediates

Startomorphic Intermediates?

Mosaic/chimera nature

Rarity of

Inverted Cone of Diversity

Suboptimal improvisations

Suboptimal improvisations?

Vestigal organs

Vestigal organs

Absence of nascent organs

Macrobiogegraphical evidences

Macrobiogegraphical evidences

Water-to-land fossil order

Water-to-land fossil order

Nonevolutionary order of first appearances

Organismal complexity

Integration of complexity

Aesthetics of Life

Ibid p231

1.  Commonness can be due to a common designer (purpose, materials, style)

2.  Too many Analogies.

a.  Homology –shared origin

b.  Analogy – origin not shared, but parallel function

-wings of insects, bats, birds

c.  Analogies are supposed to be rare because they are only to arise when

-Advantageous in form AND easy to produce naturally

3.  Embryology does not recapitulate phylogeny.  (falling out of favor)

a.  similar start and end points (one cell to many cells)

b.  sometimes just gross differences (gills of reptiles not really like “gills” of fetus)

c.  “Wrong” order sometimes.

4.  Nested Hierarchy on a morphospace

a.  Darwinism should have a cone of increasing diversity.  Not stasis or inverted cone of diversity.  Cambrian Explosion

-Echinoderms and Arthropods have more classes the further back we go

b.  Explains “branches”… but not  “leaves.”  Spaces should be filled

c.  Lots of Missing Links

5.  Suboptimal?  Who knows?

6.  Vestigal vs. nascent organs?

7.  Taxonomy vs Fossil Record 95% discordance rate.  

“When the order of all kingdoms, phyla and classes is compared with eh most reasonable phylogenies, over 95 percent of all the lines are not consistent with the order in the fossil record. The statistically significant exception are the orders of first appearances of the phyla of plants and the classes of vertebrates and arthropods.  Yet these three lineages also order organismal groups from sea-dwellers to land-dwellers.” Ibid.  P225

D.  Intelligent Design, Origin of Life, and Information Theory

1.  Dembski has done incredible work to produce a positive test for design: the explanatory filter.

2.  Chance as an explanation is a default explanation.  It is ignorance.

3.  High Probability Events are be explained by general laws of science

4.  Intermediate probability events are understood as chance

5.  Events of small probability are either specified or unspecified

6.  An unspecified event of small probability is designated as chance

7.  A specified event of small probability is interpreted as design

Features:

8.  The mechanism of the design does not matter.  Actually, this is primarily a mathematical/logical endeavor.  The physical matter is no more essential than the wood of a chess piece… or ink of a pen. 

9.  Background probabilities are important, but can be difficult

10.  “Specified” requires knowledge.  This is not an argument from ignorance.

11.  False negatives abound in trying to detect design.

12.  Information theory’s complexity (not the same as Behe’s) is a closely related idea.

13.  Complexity is measured by bits of information.  It is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify from a set.

14.  It is not highly ordered.  Crystals and such contain minimal complexity due to repetition.

15.  The origin of information is the primary difficulty with the origin of life.

16.  According to Hubert Yockey in Information Theory and Molecular Biology, the minimum amount of information for a Von-Neuman self-replicating maching is about a million bits of information.

17.  Biology may be of extremely high yield for the intelligent design movement.  DNA is isomorphic with a binary system because it is a language and subject to the mathematical laws of information theory.

18.  Complexity is scalar (0 to infinity) while probability is a fraction (zero to one)

19.  But there is a relationship… longer passwords are more complex… and have a lower probability of being guessed by chance alone.

20.  The Intelligent Design movement is attempting to actively bring design as a scientific endeavor.  The goal is to provide a positive response to methodological naturalism.  We’ll see.