The Conundrum of the “Modern Scientific Outlook”

   In the ABC TV Series Numb3rs, cosmologist professor Dr. Larry Fleinhardt displays the conundrum 

of the “modern scientific outlook.”[1] Bultmann and others seemingly believe science has proven “the universe is a closed system– that is, it is sealed off from any interference from outside the web of cause-and-effect.”[2] But how does avoidance of data increase pertinent information? How can ignoring even investigation of disputed theories be scientific? While the sciences do in fact help identify supernatural events (more on that later), how could a study of only the natural prove nature is sealed off from the supernatural? That’s not a job for the natural sciences; that’s theology’s job.[3]

The Conundrum in Action

    Studied before Darwin, and featured more recently as a cover story,[4] the Cambrian Explosion provides an excellent case study for this conundrum. Evolutionary theory claims identical structures among organisms (convergence) must share common ancestry.[5] Yet, the lack of fossil evidence troubled Darwin and Buckland –particularly regarding the Cambrian Explosion. To address this, Darwin waxes eloquently regarding possible

incompleteness of the fossil record attempting to validate evolutionary arguments based on nothing –which actually confirms the lack of evidence.[6] Yet, even in the massive increase in fossil discoveries since Darwin –not insignificantly the discovery of less-complex life forms much older, today just as then, the aptly called “missing link” is still missing.[7]

    Evolutionary theory claims identical structures among organisms must share common ancestry.[8] However, problems persist. DNA sequencing now reveals that similar structures among diverse organisms, like wings of birds and bats, are genetically distinct.[9] Further, their structures themselves are fundamentally different despite the superficial similarities.[10] An additional problem is the issue of “repeatable” evolution. “No finale can be specified at the start; none would ever occur a second time in the same way;” there are simply too many variables for the thousands of improbable stages.[11] If evolutionary processes produced life, one should expect few, if any, cases of “repeats.” But this is simply not the case.[12] If evolution is responsible for life’s diversity, expectations of convergence would be extremely low.[13] That is not the case either.

Final Thoughts

    Given that even biologists embracing methodological naturalism regard occurrences of repeatable evolution as “unexpected and remarkable,”[14] biological convergence is an important component in arguing that throughout history, life is a result of supernatural activity by a Creator.[15] In fact, the sciences as a whole help identify supernatural events.[16] How? Say science discovers that so-and-so is what happens due to the properties of a thing. Then, imagine an event occurs that “exceeds or overrides the natural properties of the things involved.”[17] Such an event merits the conclusion that something supernatural occurred in that event. This is NOT the “god of-the-gaps fallacy. It’s not about ascribing something to God because we do NOT know or understand properties of things; it’s about ascribing something to God because it’s contrary to what we DO know of things.[18]

    With all this in mind, certain questions remain: What authority  should the “modern scientific outlook” have in what one believes? Is this outlook separate from the practice of science itself –to be a good scientist must you have this outlook?[19]

_______________

[1] C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 217.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Time Magazine, Dec 4, 1995.

[5] Fazale Rana, “Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation?”

[6] Fazale Rana “Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang”.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Fazale Rana, “Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation?”

[9] Ibid.

[10] Fazale Rana, Convergence: Evidence for a Single Creator.

[11] Stephen J. Gould’s Wonderful Life in Fazale Rana, “Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation?”

[12] Ibid.

[13] Fazale Rana, Convergence: Evidence for a Single Creator.

[14] Fazale Rana, “Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation?”

[15] Fazale Rana, Convergence: Evidence for a Single Creator.

[16] C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 218.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid., 219.

[19] Ibid., 216.