If I am being honest, all of this may have started from playing in the creek where I grew up as a child, looking for tadpoles. I loved the symmetry of the half frog / half tadpole body. This helped to start my fascination with science in general. I mean afterall, wasn’t this evolution in action? Didn't this reflect what we were learning in the classroom? Later, when I was a bit older, my appreciation of nature manifested itself in the form of an 11-year old miniature DNR officer. I would catch game fish at the lake and bring them home for release in my small backyard swimming pool. The above ground kind of pool you buy at Walmart by the way, nothing extravagant. This then gave way to me digging a 4’ x 5’ hole in my mother’s garden one warm summer's day, in the hopes of creating my own makeshift farm pond. Such was my appreciation of the local ecosystem that I had to build a miniature one for myself! My parents were patient that’s for sure, but not that patient. I managed to get in some trouble for that one, so naturally I blamed it on my uncle (who was a real-life DNR officer). More on this later.
But what happens when we grow up? What happens to this imaginative self-expression as we become adults? Well, I think a lot of the time we start asking big questions such as “how much in this world is science and how much is faith?” … or “what is really responsible for creating those fish that I used to catch and release into that little swimming pool?” Did God start everything or not quite? I think as we become young adults especially, we are thrust into certain academic environments (at high school or college), where we are subjected to curriculum and teachers who have no room for God (at least as it pertains to biology or cosmology in the classroom). And there is sometimes no room whatsoever for theology. It may often beg the question: Is faith at war with science? Or can they actually co-exist?
Well
it didn’t take long for my interest to switch from what nature and
science were
doing down on Earth, to what was going on up above in space. Some of you may
remember a television personality named Carl Sagan. I
remember fondly as a child,
when my father and I would sit on the sofa together and watch the show Cosmos on public television, and Sagan would talk about how vast the universe was. There are “billions and billions of stars out there" he would say. The idea of the Big Bang was of particular interest to me as well: the notion that everything just shot into existence from a small, dense ball of matter called a singularity. It wasn’t until later in my life that I began to ponder questions that many of my teachers could not (or would not) necessarily answer. Questions such as what caused the singularity? What came before everything else? Is there even a need to ask such questions?
when my father and I would sit on the sofa together and watch the show Cosmos on public television, and Sagan would talk about how vast the universe was. There are “billions and billions of stars out there" he would say. The idea of the Big Bang was of particular interest to me as well: the notion that everything just shot into existence from a small, dense ball of matter called a singularity. It wasn’t until later in my life that I began to ponder questions that many of my teachers could not (or would not) necessarily answer. Questions such as what caused the singularity? What came before everything else? Is there even a need to ask such questions?
Now
I am no expert on cosmology or astronomy, but there is a man named William Lane
Craig - a Christian philosopher, PhD, and author - who ardently defends a
theory known
as the Kalam argument. Dr.
Craig often travels the globe expounding upon, and defending this theory at major
universities, as it brings together both the science of the big bang and the
theology of a creator. The argument is exquisite in its' simplicity, and it contains the following three steps:
1.) Nothing
currently exists without being caused
2.) The
Universe currently exists3.) Therefore, the Universe has a cause
Why
is this argument so important? Because
it flies in the face of a popular counter argument that has come about
recently, namely that everything came from nothing
… that we are all total accidents. Life has no real meaning, and the universe simply popped into being one day on it’s own. Because
you see friends, if we can accept the three premises of the Kalam argument - and that nothing can
exist without a first cause - then even the Big Bang and the universe had a cause. It didn’t just “happen” accidentally. So
then, what was this first cause? Is it okay to discuss this? Since no one alive today was around to witness it, does the question even matter? I think that it does.
We can find some concepts about this first cause in the book of
Genesis from the Bible. What
does God say about the beginning of everything? Genesis
1:1 says this, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Read closely, as I believe this verse tells us two important things:
1.) Before there was anything at all, there was something
2.) God himself was the first cause
that did the creating (and not chance or accident)
This may seem like common sense to those who
were raised in the church, but let me tell you, Genesis 1 isn’t
held in the same high esteem by everyone, or in the same way as we do in the
church. Take Lawrence Krauss for example. He is a high profile scientist and proponent of the idea that
things can spring into being from nothing. He
says that particles can simply jump into being from a vacuum state (vacuum here
meaning “nothing”).
The
problem with this idea (and others like it) is that this vacuum state of nothing he is referring to
is actually a whole lot of something. It’s a sea of
fluctuating energy and violent activity, that has a rich physical structure, and
is even governed by physical laws.
But many people
don’t want us to know that.
They don’t want us to understand that these “vacuums”
consist of observable materials and laws.
And when this was brought to light, Krauss had to acknowledge this truth
publicly (at a live debate in Brisbane titled “Life, the Universe and Nothing”). But the idea still sometimes
persists, the damage was done. The media spotlight turned toward this notion of a creator-less universe and went with
it. Genesis
1 it would seem, was lost in the shuffle, at least temporarily.
I promised we would return again to the account of building a make-shift farm pond in my mother’s
backyard. There
was actually some research that went on prior to me talking my poor friend into
destroying the garden. His name was Brian by the way, and he was a good sport. He kept
asking me, “is it really okay to dig up this garden?” I assured him it was.
Ravi Zecharius is another prolific defender of Christian foundational thought. He is fond of the saying “intent
precedes content." This is a fancy way of saying that if someone has made up their mind already, it is
extremely tough to change it. I
believe this to be true: if someone has decided that there is no God and that
faith is indeed at war with science, then no amount of Kalam arguments or big
bang discussions will change that. They
have locked themselves into an intellectual prison allowing only one way of thinking, and
thrown out the key to the cell door. The
mind shuts firmly closed, and often only God can crack it ajar again.
Now, what are we to do with this? Do we throw our hands up in the air and give
up? Do we sink back into the notion that
it isn’t any good discussing our faith with other mindsets? Will faith and science always be hot topics
that we should leave alone, just like politics and religion? I
want you to consider one thing first.
What does Scripture say about how people are to look for evidence of
God? We
know that the apostle Paul tells us in the book of Romans that “…
since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power
and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been
made, so that people are without excuse.” But
given this, how is it specifically that we are to come to this realization of
God without excuse?
I
love the statement from the book of Acts - chapter 17:27. It says, “so that they should seek the Lord, in the
hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each
one of us.” Or
also in Jeremiah, when we read, “You will seek me and find me when
you seek me with all your heart.”
Evidence,
science, the Big Bang, and even Christian apologetic books are simply
collections
of statements and sayings. They can be
interpreted differently by different
people. It is up to you and I to choose God or not. No cheating allowed and no shortcuts –
we have to make up our own mind. So
then, can faith co-exist with science?
Of course it can, there is no war.
But that isn’t the real issue most of the time. The
real question is can you and I co-exist with a good and holy God? Or are we at war with Him? I suspect this has always been the real
question. It
will always be possible to decide to filter out the truth of His existence with abstract arguments and alternate philosophies.
We may decide to believe that something can come from nothing - uncaused,
or that evolution explains even the Universe and other galaxies. But
we must be careful doing so, because we may very well be using the wonderful intellect that God has given each of us, in order to crucify Him a second time
by failing to really seek Him with our whole heart.
I
love the story of Eben Alexander. Do you
remember him? He
authored the famous book Proof of Heaven: a Neurosurgeon’s
Journey into the Afterlife. This
is the story of a doctor who was so entrenched in the idea that science explained
everything, he abandoned God early on in his youth.
There is a verse in Colossians 1:17 that I think provides a decent enough summation for us by saying this: “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” This includes faith, and this includes science. And it would certainly include little boys that turn their parents' garden into swimming pools. May all of us have the courage to search for God, and find Him.
.