State of Protest

This article is part of the series: Secrets of Christianity: Unearthed

God: the Evidence

Come again? What “evidence”?

In religion, man is assumed to be the most important thing in the “universe”, the special project of some deity. This has lead to religion ignoring observable facts and insisting that the earth is the “center” of the universe” and indeed that everything revolves around it. This baseless assumption defined how most religions and especially Christianity interacted with humanity and our world.

The heliocentric solar system was not unfamiliar to those in ancient times, or to those from other religions. Aristarchus of Samos wrote that he was furthering the theories of Heraclides Ponticus in the third century BC.¹ Muslim scholars did work to show that the earth rotates.² However, all of these early scientists were decried by contemporaries.³ How dare they say that the earth is not the center of the universe! This slowly started to change when instruments were developed to allow us to observe our world more accurately. Galileo saw the moons revolving around Jupiter.⁴ Copernicus came up with the data and formulas to demonstrate how we revolve.⁵ We then had to acknowledge that pretty stories meant nothing when reality was knocking on the door.

When Copernicus originally revealed his theories, they were met with interest but not yet aversion. However, they met opposition 3 years later when a Dominican monk denounced them in a work that indicated that the Bible was inerrant, the absolute truth of how the universe worked.⁶ Following that, Galileo dared to reveal that his telescope supported the heliocentric model. With such an “attack” against the infallibility of the Bible, and therefore Catholic Church, that which was acceptable as an idea became unacceptable as reality.⁷ Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for supporting Copernicus’ ideas and Galileo was convicted of heresy.⁸ Any heliocentric works were on the Vatican’s Index of Prohibited Books in 1616 and the specific books by Copernicus and Galileo were on that list until 1835.⁹

As you can see above, Copernicus did much to advance man’s knowledge of his world. In 1973, there was a celebration of the 500th anniversary of his birth.¹⁰ At this celebration, many scientific papers were presented by many of the preeminent scientists of that time. However, there was one paper presented that was not of this caliber. One of the articles in U.S. News and World Report’s special edition “Secrets of Christianity” mentions this one in its “God: the Evidence” article. One would assume that a magazine dedicated to pursuing the facts about things would have perhaps read this article over more closely, looking for facts to support the subject’s claims or making sure that questionable claims weren’t included. However, that is not the case.

This article begins with mentioning the august figures in attendance at that 1973 symposium. The author takes great pride in listing the names of Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, etc. However, it immediately insists that the “only” paper to be “remembered” from that conference was one by Brandon Carter, “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology.”¹¹ Now, I suspect that there were many papers that were remembered from that conference. One, “Large Scale Anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background” by R.B. Partridge,¹² did much for advancing Big Bang theories.

Dr. Carter’s idea was one that many apologists attempt to use today. The idea is that the universe, with its myriad laws and constants are “perfect” for human life, or as Dr. Carter put it, “[W]hat we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions for our presence as observers.” This has been claimed to “prove” that God exists, because there needs to be an “intelligence” that decided it wanted humans and it then created a universe to support those humans.

The article goes even further to claim that the theories based on observation of facts, such as evolutionary theory and the heliocentric fact, “explained the tone of despair and angst that came to characterize modern culture, the desperate feeling that humankind was along and without moorings, and above all, without God.” However, the article does nothing to show how this supposedly occurred. This is an excellent example of more baseless assumptions upon which religion builds its claims.

Baseless claims like this are rife throughout the article. It is claimed that “scientists began to notice a strange connection among a number of otherwise unexplained coincidences in physics.” This “connection” is supposedly the one “overriding fact”: “Such values had been necessary for the creation of life.” Now, a fact is a very specific thing, especially in the scientific world. A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality.¹³ Because we do not know exactly what is required for the creation of life — something that creationists are quite fond of reminding everyone — it cannot be claimed that it is known for a “fact” that the constants and laws of physics are indeed required for it. The article also does not cite who these “scientists” were, which is always a sign of a claim with no evidence to support it.

The article claims that the argument of “God did it” is a “simpler way of explaining” these constants and laws than the “exotic theories” of physicists. This could be a good assumption if one also believed that fairies made shoes for people in exchange for a bowl of milk rather than the “exotic theory” that cobblers make shoes.

Dr. Carter attempted to make his idea more scientifically palatable by attempting to claim that the “coincidences” that he claimed were too many to just be that, coincidences. However, there is no way to determine how many was “too many.” He also relied on an old idea about the universe. Once, it may have been considered simply “random” by 19th century thinkers, but no scientist thinks that the universe is totally random today nor is it likely that they did even back in 1973. Also, the author of the article has attempted to claim that “Darwin’s theory of “natural selection” could no longer be taken as an exhaustive explanation for the phenomenon of life. Again, these are common mistakes by apologists, using very outdated information and presenting half-truths, since evolutionary theory does not address abiogenesis as he attempts to call the “phenomenon of life.”

There are further attempts to claim that “20th century science is closer to in spirit to the vision of the Book of Genesis than anything offered since Copernicus.” Unless one takes it all completely as “metaphor” and shoehorns any definition one likes into it, it is not. If one does this, then what of the Bible is “metaphor” and what is literal? Why is one person’s “interpretation” better than another’s? The article also tries to claim that finding an origin to the universe is some kind of “scientific embarrassment” and it adds to this the lie that science agrees at all with this unsupported idea that the universe is “expressly designed for life.”

Unfortunately, this article is emblematic of many other Christian apologist arguments. They try to co-opt the terms and discoveries of science to make Christianity sound more plausible, which is especially ironic when “good Christians” didn’t believe any of this when the theories were new and had less evidence supporting them. The article attempts to say that the burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “God did it.” However anyone knows that the person who proposes an idea is the one who must provide the proof that it is correct and none has been provided. Each scientific discovery pushes any deity farther and farther into the gaps that they try to exploit. Life is in the universe because that’s what those constants and laws just happen to allow to arise. If those constants and laws were different, we would either not be here or we would be here in a different form. The universe isn’t “perfect” for us at all. We are “perfect” for it.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_heliocentrism [<]
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_heliocentrism [<]
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair [<]
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo [<]
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus [<]
6. Rosen, Edward (1995). Copernicus and his Successors. London: Hambledon Press. ISBN 1 85285 071 X [<]
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair [<]
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno [<]
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum [<]
10. http://siarchives.si.edu/findingaids/FARU0500.HTM [<]
11. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974IAUS…63..291C [<]
12. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974IAUS…63..157P [<]
13. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact [<]