Does science prove the existence of God?

Every now and then I receive rather long emails from people explaining their rationale for believing in an deity, for which I am very grateful. I can only assume these people are either;

a) Terribly concerned with my eternal soul, or

b) Wish me to validate their own beliefs.

They assume I have not heard their arguments before and will shout “Oh my! I never thought of that before” and bow before baby Jesus.

The latest comes from a Youtube user who goes by the name NRA4ever333, who I see has recently befriended VenomFangX. I think I can see what’s coming before I start.

Whatever the motivation, I have decided to respond in public so that others may benefit from the discussion. NRA4ever333′s original message is indented, with my replies below the relevant passages.

Does Science Prove The Existence Of GOD?(please read all of it before commenting, it took me a long time to compose.)

I am a science major; I have never personaly met a truly scientific person who did not at least admit to the existence of some form of intelligent designer. Science proves that there is no reasonable possibility of life and the universe happening by accident.

I would not agree that the universe began “by accident” – I am not even sure the universe actually had a beginning. Our investigations so far all point to a rapid expansion of the universe as we know it some 13.7 billion years ago, but no one has ever said this was a beginning – it is a marker. We do not have the tools or know how to probe sizes smaller than the Planck length; perhaps sometime in the future we will.

Moreover, I believe the universe obeys naturalistic laws, and being a scientific person you would know this. If the universe does have a beginning the only way we will explore how this happened will be via the natural means – it will be a naturalistic cause. I am not sure I would label any naturalistic means an “accident”.

You then have to understand that, if this being (who or whatever it may be) is so far above us that we will never be able to truly comprehend its existence. This makes it impossible for any religion to be 100% accurate, and if God ever did speak to man it would be in a dumbed down fashion. (Like explaining space time with a piece of cloth and marbles.)

That’s an interesting idea but fundamentally flawed. If there is an all powerful being who fashioned the universe into existence by thought alone, then why is it impossible for him to describe himself to us? Is this a burrito so hot he cannot eat it?

What’s more, if all religions are imperfect representations of his feeble explanations, then how can we determine which aspects of religion are divinely inspired and which are simply invented by man? I can devise no way to determine truth in this scenario, do you have an answer?

We can only understand what our brains are capable of understanding. Members of the ape family can use simple tools, but they are incapable of understanding fission. So to, (In our current evolutionary state) we may simply be incapable of understanding or fathoming anything about this intelligent designer. In fact, most will admit that there are a great many things in the universe that we are just incapable of understanding. To assume we are advanced enough to understand everything about the universe (or multiverse) is vain at best, and terribly depressing if true.

Technically speaking we *are* apes, but I accept your point. Evolution has given us the gift of thought, and it has been a distinct advantage in our survival. We have the ability to understand the world around us, model the potential motivations of other creatures, and predict the future. This has enabled us to strategically outsmart our competitors.

Our evolutionary cousins (apes and monkeys) do exhibit clear signs of abstract thought and problem solving, but they have not reached the heights of intellect which we have managed. See the following Youtube video as evidence of both problem solving, co-operation, and ethical behaviour.

Nevertheless, what you are referring to here is ultimate knowledge. If it were capable for us to have complete knowledge of all things then we would either be god (depending on your definition of the word), or we might be able finally say with certainty that there is no god. In either case it is not a given that complete knowledge could prove the existence of a deity.

When choosing how to see and serve (or not serve) this intelligent designer purely depends on faith. Faith cannot be proven, neither can religious merit, but I am fairy sure that I can prove the existence of an Intelligent designer.

While I agree that the object of a persons faith cannot be proven via any objective means available to us, but their faith itself can. People holding to a particular faith will adhere to the tenants of that faith. They will act in accordance with those articles of faith and predictably behave in certain ways.

We can work this chain backwards as well. People who behave in given ways may have high correlations to one faith in particular – most likely the faith to which they adhere.

Let’s see how we go with the argument for an intelligent designer.

Charles Darwins Theory of Evolution: Most people that prattle on about evolution do not even understand what it is. The old saying Survival of the fittest does not even begin to explain its complexities. It would be more appropriate to say that: members of a population who experience a beneficial genetic mutation or are blessed by specific breeding are better suited to their environment. These individuals experience better survival, and breeding success, giving their alleles a foothold in the gene pool.

A common misconception about evolution is that the animals adapt to their environment. This is not true, Adaptation Evolution was proposed by Alfred Russel Wallace. Adaptation has been proven wrong, Darwins Decent with modification theory is the evolutionary theory accepted today.

This is a good start.

It is also interesting to note that Darwin believed in God. In fact he (like many modern scientists) believed that Evolution proved the existence of an intelligent creator. Beneficial genetic mutations are far too rare, based on what we know by the fossil records something had to guide this change to come as far as we have. The chances of random mutations leading to modern life are mathematically so unlikely, as to be considered impossible by all but the most stubborn atheist zealots.

Oh dear.

It is true that Darwin believed in God. This is one of the reasons he struggled so long with his own hypothesis and meticulously researched his ideas. What is not clear (at least to me) is what he eventually concluded about the existence of a supernatural deity, although I think it is fair to say his peers thought evolution was the mechanism employed by God – and why not, it is so elegant and powerful.

Beneficial mutation need not be common for evolution to work. Since organism only compete with their contemporary peers, then any inefficiencies or defects they possess will be possessed by all – well mostly all, since variation will still occur. Relatively poor designed (in comparison to future generations) will still persevere as long as reproduction is possible. Once a beneficial change does appear it will spread though the population over the generations due to the organisms better ability to survive, feed, breed, or defend itself. This is the essence of natural selection.

The last problem with evolution without intelligent design is complex organs, and systems. We can see this in insects. Insects have the same primitive nervous, and respitory systems for millions of years. Decent with modification usually affects the phenotype of the species through its morphology. Leaving advanced systems and organs unaffected. In Darwins own works he expressed this by talking about the eye.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Darwin 1872)

Evolutionary theory says that things change, but not that they must change. There are numerous examples of organisms which have not changed substantially for millions of years – the Australian crocodile comes to mind.

I am unsure where you get the idea that “advanced systems” are immune to change – the phrase “modification usually affects the phenotype” also suggests that sometimes it does not. Doesn’t this undermine your position?

Yes, Darwin did make that statement in his book “On the Origin of Species” – on page 96 in my copy. We also went on to say the following in the very same paragraph:

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world
turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

What do you think Darwin was trying to say here?

Yes our eye is an incredible example of biology, but it is far from perfect. There are animals with better visual acuity, or who can see into the infrared wavelengths, or have reflective coatings to help them better see at night (my geriatric cat sits on my lap as I write this). In what way is our eye perfect?

Assuming it is not perfect (merely irreducibly complex), then it should not be possible to remove any part of the eye without making it completely useless. Unfortunately, we can do exactly this – although I would not suggest it.

We can remove the cornea and the ability to focus along with it. This leaves us with the ability to detect light/dark and possibly vague shapes. While not ideal, it is better than being completely blind. We could remove the muscles that control eye movement thus requiring us to move our heads about much more. It’s not perfect, but it’s better that blindness. We could remove all the receptor cones of a particular type or any number of other things which would drastically affect vision, all still better than total blindness. Remember, all we needed to show was that removing one part would “prove” irreducible complexity, but it seems we can remove many and still retain some function for the owner.

I am not suggesting that evolution requires the sudden appearance of a cornea or any other attribute, but the gradual addition of these features is all that is required. So it seems as long as there is a slow graduation from total blindness to “perfect” eye sight, then the theory of evolution is in no danger whatsoever.

Abiogenesis: is the theory in which states life can be created from inorganic molecules. With the proper mix of chemicals, you can make amino acids. These amino acids combine into proteins combined with nucleic acids; stimulated by energy (light, electricity, and/or heat) you would make life. But there are a lot of problems with this theory.

A chemist by the name of Stanley Lloyd Miller did a breakthrough experiment were he combined several chemicals that he thought matched primeval earths make-up. Lo and behold he creates amino acids, the building blocks of Life! Only everything he did, and the outcome was wrong.

1. Miller used ammonia in his experiment, but the high levels of Ultra Violet light on primeval earth would have broken up the ammonia, so it would not have been found in large quantities.

2. He also left out O2. Now it is unclear if Miller thought that O2 wasnt important. But he probably knew that O2 would prevent the creation of amino acids. O2 has been found through geological evidence to have existed in large quantities on primeval earth.

3. He produced both basic and non-basic amino acids. Basic amino acids are the building blocks of life. But the non-basic amino acids would have interfered with the creation of that life.

4. What Miller produced was in fact a poisonous concoction that would have prevented life from forming, and would be fatal to it.

5. I can all be summed up like this; many scientists have created amino acids through various chemical combinations. But none have been able to produce life starting with inorganic materials.

I am familiar with the experiment but not that particulars, nor does it matter. One failed experiment does not relegate an idea to the impossible. Thomas Edison is said to have created 1,000′s of experimental light bulbs before finding one that actually worked. No one ever said the light bulb was impossible because of his first failed experiment.

That said, abiogenesis is a new field of scientific exploration – who knows what the future holds. Remember, the creation of a fully functional biological cell is not the goal here, but merely the presence of self replicating compounds. Once these start to compete for resources, then variation and natural selection can take over – starting with incredibly primitive structures and slowly working to the amazing complexity of life we see before us.

But lets say, for arguments sake, that it works in theory. If life was created from a collection of amino acids, which formed complex proteins, which miraculously created the first prokaryote, then why did it only happen once? Amino acids and proteins may have been rare in primeval earth, but with life covering the planet the building blocks of life are everywhere. It should (in theory) happen all the time now, but it only happened once. We know it only happened once because modern phylogenetics has proven that all life is related at a genetic level. Not to mention the fact that abiogenesis is in direct conflict with the third law of cell theory.

Cell Theory:

1. All living things are composed of one or more cells.

2. The cell is the most basic unit of life.

3. All Cells come from pre existing cells.

So, like evolution, it seems that life can only happen with the aid of an intelligent designer.

Sorry, I was not aware that abiogenesis is only allowed to happen once. There are some good reasons to think that it may have indeed multiple times, but these events are so obscured by time we may never know the full truth. Again, more successful structures/organisms will overcome those less suited to their environment. It does not matter – all that needs to be demonstrated is that it could have occurred naturally – then it’s not a big jump to conclude it has, or we would not be here discussing it.

As I alluded to earlier – cells may come from pre-existing cells, but not necessarily exact replica cells. There is variation and with enough variation and time we can “devolve” a cell into self replicating molecules.

Big Bang Theory: says (in simplified terms) that it all started with an extremely hot, dense ball of mater, which exploded/expanded outwards. The galaxies are relatively proportional to each other, in waves emanating from the middle of the universe. The galaxies farther out are the fastest, while those closer in move slower. The farthest galaxies that we can see are moving faster. (At the initiation of the big bang it seems some galaxies moved faster than the speed of light. Something thought to be impossible by Einsteins theory of relativity.) So heres the problem. The proportional way in which, the galaxies are spreading out break the second law of thermal dynamics. (See below) While the original mass breaks the first law of thermodynamics.

First two laws of thermodynamics:

1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

2. The release of energy creates entropy in the universe.

It may be hard for some people to imagine a being who always was, but the Idea of mater and energy being created out of nothing is a scientific impossibility.

The speed of light is constant (according to the current models), but the universe is not. See “Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?” and “If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, how can we see objects that are now 47 billion light years away?“.

The second law of thermal dynamics refers to a specific quality of closed systems. How it relates to the universe in its entirety is unclear and not settled yet.

Above all else, remember this; as soon as you say that something is impossible (whether it be the existence of God or the possibility of faster than light travel) you lose your objectivity and credibility as a scientist, and become a zealot.

I remain open minded to any all ideas, and am especially swayed by those which are supported by objective, empirical evidence.

If you take away belief systems and look at the bigger picture, God and science co-exist perfectly. Once you see that science proves the existence of an intelligent designer, then why argue with people who put a storyline behind it.

I have no problem with your conclusions based on the arguments you put forward, however I do think those arguments are flawed leading to false results. You have proposed a deist position, which at least is completely honest and inline with the apparent evidence. For this I thank you – most people I chat to jump straight to the conclusion that Yahweh is responsible.  Urgh.