July 20, 2014
Science Matters
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Would Douglas Adams, the author of the popular The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Galaxy, be alive today, I hope he would forgive me for borrowing the title of the third book of his comical science fiction so called “trilogy” of five books, to speak about the relationship of science to God. Perhaps Adams would not be a fan of my use for this article, in that Adams himself was a devoted atheist. Although fascinated by the effect of religion on man, he felt one could look at the beauty of life for its own sake, rather than having to put God there. Adams was not alone. Many think science and religion do not mix.
Science and religion may be based on incompatible methods: the scientific method seeks to prove or disprove hypotheses using experiments which result in empirical data which is analyzed using accepted methodology; whereas religion is primarily based on faith. Are these truly incompatible? Many studies have been conducted which exam scientists’ religious beliefs verses those of the general population. Most of these uphold the fact that fewer scientists believe in God than do the general population. One such study, conducted in 2009 found that 33% of scientists believed in God versus 83% in the general population (Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Survey, 2009). Most people would look at this data and notice the lesser percentage of scientists who believe. But I find the 33% of scientists who still believe fascinating. If science and religion are so incompatible, why is that a third of scientists actively believe in God? I think it may be because science will never discover all the answers. New discoveries generally lead to new questions. As a scientist myself, I believe that there are unanswerable questions. Thus comes belief and faith.
When one looks at the magnificence of life, it’s self-sustaining nature, in spite of its penchant for self-destruction, one cannot help but marvel. The ability of living creatures to reproduce and stave off multitudes of insults and infections is amazing. However these processes are not perfect. Many of us are saddled by genetic abnormalities which lead to problems and the life sustaining processes break down in time and eventually fail. But one cannot view life and not be amazed. How is it that the complex biochemical basis for life, DNA, developed from sugar molecules and some ringed base compounds, put together in a spiral double stranded structure, could have happened by chance? How is it that an intricate coding system based on a three letter code could send signals that cause proteins, hormones, and regulator substances to be synthesized and monitored without any conscious thought on our parts? Could the elaborate system of life have occurred by happenstance? If so, my brain cannot fathom it. To me, it took a mighty Engineer. Much more likely and much mightier than could have occurred by accident.
It was science and not religion that has discovered these things. But it wasn’t science that invented them. Man can do many wondrous things. But creating a living, breathing, thinking creature is not one of them. You might say that science has cloned animals. You might say that man can create babies in petri dishes. And you would be correct. But science has not found a way to create a complex living thing from chemicals that were not pre-populated by the biochemical machinery created by nature. In other words, at this time, it takes preformed enzymes, cells, and the biochemical milieu borrowed from living things in order to do this. In this way, science is admitting that it does not know everything, that it cannot do everything.
Science can study great works of art. It can look at the elemental and physical composition of the canvas, it can look at the type of paint used, and it can approximate the date it was created with carbon dating. Historians can study the artist and what motivated them to produce the work of art. Man can do all those things. A man might even be able to make a nearly identical copy to the original. But man can never duplicate the actual work. Man can only surmise how the painting was done and all the other essentials. So, although man and science can determine many things, in the end, they fall short in all aspects of dissecting the painting completely. There are things we will never know, such as the exact movement of muscles as the painter applied the paint using brush strokes developed through experience. But what we can do is we can appreciate the painting. And we can marvel in it.
For me, I love science. Rather than creating doubt, it allows me to sense complete amazement in everything. I cannot look at the beauty of this world, its mountains, its bayous, a sunset, hold a newborn baby and feel its heart beating in its chest, look upon people holding hands in love, or hear laughter, and not feel a sense of gratitude to the God who put me here and made all these things. My belief is that Science is man’s way of attempting to get a glimpse at God - how God works. It’s like taking apart an engine to see how it works. We are taking apart things to see how God works. God is everything. God makes everything. And God uses the laws of science to do this. And when we study science, it’s all about the magnificence of life, the universe, and everything.
life, the universe, and everything
when i proceed to ponder
life, the universe,
and everything up yonder
i dizzily gasp for breath
viewing all that lies
between birth and death
the mysteries and magnificence
of creations’ brilliance
of abundant extravagance
microscopic, macroscopic
and all in between
a vision
only god
could have foreseen.
© 2014 rt tulley