An Open Letter to Scientists
It’s about time for scientists to admit the existence of The Supreme Being. ”The heavens declare the glory of God.” Recent worldwide dialog has rather certainly concluded that the Theory of Evolution is not in any way opposed to, or incompatible with, the Universe as Creation, and God, as Creator – evolution being merely one of the many sub-systems of Creation.
When Isaac Newton was displaying for the first time the mechanical model of the solar system, which he had built, an amazed onlooker asked, “Who built this?” to which Newton replied with sublime irony: “Nobody.” Obviously, so very obviously now, the Universe had to have an an Omniscient and Omnipotent Creator because it, like Newton’s orrery, is an evident construct.
Albert Einstein marveled at how the Universe is ever more intelligible. Certainly, “random variation” would not result in a system that is hierarchically intelligible, and patterned, to the nth level of investigation. Even Chaos is not chaotic, but is intelligible and patterned, and mathematically proscribed by laws that seem to have applications to systems throughout Creation. Laws of Nature are discoveries of the human mind, but such discoveries could not be made unless Nature had embedded in its matter the operation of these laws. The Laws of Nature are not created by the human mind, they pre-exist humans to be discovered and formulated by us in the process of Scientific investigation.
It is always possible to do mental gymnastics to avoid the, frankly, Common Sensical conclusion that there is a God. Steven Hawking goes to such extremes in his latest pronouncements that the Universe does not need a Creator. Hawking may be living in radical denial of God due to the peculiar nexus of his personal psychology, physical deterioration, and celebrity status within the largely atheist scientific community. His view is curious, but, not at all compelling.
It’s high time Science let God in the room. Prejudicially, God is being excluded based on the alleged fact that He is supposedly not subject to direct scientific examination. If God were subject to direct scientific investigation, He wouldn’t be God, by definition. So, Science needs be more circumspect when trying to deal with “God.” But that doesn’t mean that God can exist without evidence of His existence being scientifically demonstrable.
Miracles are not necessarily direct examples of the existence of God. They may add to the body of indirect evidence, and should probably be considered among other phenomena that may, or may not, give evidence of the existence of an Omnipotent Being. Miracles may merely demonstrate physical laws that we are not yet aware of. Or they may not be miracles at all, but a sleight of hand. After all, things tend to get done by one means or another, no matter Whom performs them, but events always leave the imprint of the “hand” that made them. If criminals can be convicted based on a superfluity of circumstantial evidence, cannot the action of God be deduced from similarly abundant circumstantial evidence, like miracles?
The Catholic Eucharist is a good place to start to look for scientific evidence of God’s existence. Obviously, cutting a consecrated Host open and looking at It with an electronmicroscope isn’t expected to yield the result we are looking for BECAUSE, by definition,the Consecrated Host is not Jesus in appearance, but only in substance, whatever THAT term refers to…. 500 million people, or 42% of Catholics according to a recent poll, believe that the Eucharist is absolutely congruent to God. These, otherwise evidently sane people, treat the Consecrated Host as if it were God. Now THAT testimony can be pretty compelling, indirect, evidence of the existence of God that needs to be considered from all angles scientifically – psychological profiles of fully believing Catholics contrasted with those of atheists might reveal a difference attributable to the existence of God, or, behavioral studies of fully believing Catholics might reveal events that could only find its explanation by the existence of divine power. Historians, in their attempt to reframe history according to radical new schema, might try looking at the flow of history for the evidence of God. The Bible, purportedly authored by God, heavily invests in recording “history”. This Book needs to be analyzed scientifically more than it has been to see how “God” principles work themselves out in political events – with many applications to world history since the conclusion of the writing of the Biblical books.
So, there you have it. God has much to contribute to the modern arena. There’s an elephant in the room, or there might be, and I think it’s time to recognize that fact, or at least seriously attempt to find out if there is, or isn’t. Science should stop its prejudice against God just because they can’t dissect Him, and begin to take a more tactful, but no less rigorous, approach to finding He Who IS. ”Seek and you shall find.”







The Kingdom of Sweden took a dramatic turn toward totalitarianism with the adoption of a sweeping new education “reform” package that essentially prohibits home schooling and forces all schools to teach the same government curriculum.
Recent Comments