IN THE LION'S DEN: Defending the Creator in a Scientific Debate

The previous post, in which I asked readers to offer proof that the natural worldview was the correct one, garnered some very interesting responses when I posted it on the religion forum at Amazon.com. As I expected, a few people simply couldn’t deal with it, and rather than answer my questions, simply attacked me personally and made mocking comments about my belief in magic dwarves and such. I didn’t pay much attention to those ones, but was surprised by the honesty and fairness of several others.

The line of questioning evolved over a few days. I started by asking how people could claim that naturalism was true if they could not establish “first cause” in the pre-Big Bang conditions. As noted in the piece, there is no science available to us to study those conditions, as the physical laws of science that we use to study the “natural” world didn’t come into play until after the event itself.

A few of the more angry respondents simply stated that the world can be studied and quantified as unfolding through “natural” means, and that was enough evidence for them. I pointed out that being able to study and quantify the natural world didn’t provide the slightest shred of evidence supporting the claim that it arose by natural means. Being able to study and explain natural processes doesn't establish how the highly-deterministic physical laws arose. This really made some folks angry, perhaps because it was such a valid point. Nobody likes having their worldview challenged.

I went on to point out that if they can insist that their observation and study of the natural world somehow proves naturalism, then they must know what a supernaturally-created world would look like. This really made them angry, and drew the response about my appeal to magic dwarves. None, however, provided any scientific proof to challenge my question.

If we don’t know the cause of the Universe, how can anyone claim that the naturalist worldview is correct? Do we know what a Universe created by a super-intellect would look like? Based upon the same scientific evidence used to "prove" naturalism, I happen to think that a supernaturally-created world would look like the one we live in. I accept the scientific discovery that the Universe came about from a blast of invisible sub-atomic particles that slowly formed into the visible matter we see today. Why? Because the Apostle Paul said so, stating “…we understand by faith that what is seen was made from what was invisible.” (Hebrews 11:3) He wasn’t a physicist, but he perfectly described what science has only discovered in the past century.

In the end, a few of the more intellectually-honest respondents conceded that naturalism cannot prove itself, as it cannot establish what gave rise to our Universe in the first place. It is a mystery that remains locked in secrecy on the other side of that singularity we call the Big Bang. As one wise respondent noted, the cause of our Universe is “an indefinable element in an undefined space,” and therefore not knowable. This person clearly grasped the issue, and didn't feel threatened by it.

I tried to be fair in my responses, noting that simply because the naturalist worldview could not provide proof of first cause, it didn’t somehow prove the existence of God. It simply left the door open for the possibility. As another respondent conceded, “It leaves room for God as a write-in candidate.” I liked that. It was nice to see someone with a sense of humor.

I have always subscribed to the notion that if you’re going to convince someone of something, you must do so using their worldview as a starting point. Simply arguing that “God did it” is pointless. To argue with a person whose worldview is grounded in the naturalist viewpoint, you must argue with logic based upon that viewpoint. In doing so, I learned a lot, and perhaps started some wheels turning in the heads of a few agnostics.

In the end, I learned that my belief in a supernaturally-created world is a defensible position in a scientific argument, but only because naturalism cannot prove itself in a scientific argument. I believe in a Creator who created a Universe that dances to physical and mathematical laws, and that He used those laws to create and maintain all that we see. I see evidence of this in the order and perfection of those laws, and the arising of such things as the startlingly complex code contained within the DNA molecule.

And ultimately, that’s the beauty of learning about science, and not avoiding it. It’s discovery such as this that makes the whole thing so rewarding. You may believe in a world that arose by unknown means and unfolded through "natural" processes. I choose a Creator who has revealed Himself to us through both Scripture and the revelation of His Creation. Either way you cut it, the science remains the same.