Lets face reality, guys, scientists and science magazines now have a commitment to the unsustainable “beliefs" of naturalism and raw materialism (a kind of materialism mind madness), to the point of philosophical absurdity.
While naturalism is deemed to be the sole explanation ever allowed to explain the natural world, all the scientist in the world cannot even remotely establish that the material world is all that exists, or all that can ever exist. Nor can the whole scientific establishment combined prove that God does not exist, and cannot exist, and had no role to play in creation. Attempting to define all of reality purely in naturalistic terms is to live in denial. The scientific community must eventually face the reality that naturalism has definite limits, beyond which there will always be ongoing mysteries.
Science ultimately rests on phenomena that have no naturalistic answer, and probably never will have. Scientists don’t have the foggiest naturalistic notion were the mathematical regularity in the universe came from, nor the cosmological constants, nor even the laws of nature. And while energy and matter are the ingredients on which science functions, no scientist even remotely knows what energy or matter ultimately are.
Then we have scientism’s loopy logic. We have natural law and material processes alone deemed to define what is science. However, the gatekeeper itself, natural law, has no naturalistic answer, and may never have. This is rather like appointing an unidentified alien to guard planet earth from all other unidentified aliens, particularly God.
All of science is “belief” based, and tentative. Science starts with “beliefs” (a hypothesis); operates on the unsustainable “belief” of philosophical naturalism and materialism. And ultimately finishes on theoretical “beliefs” regarding the ultimate origin and nature life, matter and the universe. God is specifically excluded as an explanation, yet speculative notions like String and M-Theory etc now dominate science. Even though they have no verifiable empirical basis and border on science fiction rather than science. Indeed, as stated by David gross, one of the founders of string theory, “we don’t know what we are talking about.” (BBC Focus, 2008)
We have the bazaar situation where the entire scientific community is arguing against the concept of Intelligent Design, the reality that the universe clearly manifests intelligence, and can be intelligently understood. The only reason we can apply logic, reason, predictability, regularity and intelligence to science is because we live in a universe that clearly manifests such qualities. This reality is the foundation stone on which all of science operates. And to deny this reality is to saw off the limb that science is sitting on, as actually occurred at Dover.
Wake up guys! Such is the vast complexity of life that a bunch of chimps would have more chance of planning and building CERN, than luck, chance and blind mindless natural selection would have in producing even the simplest living cell. An intelligent effect always demands an intelligent cause. If you have trouble with that concept, try removing all the intelligent workers from all the factories in the US and see what happens, or try removing your wife from the kitchen, and wait for dinner to randomly evolve.
Let’s face it, where would luck, chance and natural selection get the broad perspective to evolve different life forms at different rates, in different ways, at different times, or not at all (stasis), to ultimately produce a finely balanced environment and co-dependent Eco-systems. Such an accomplishment would necessitate all the attributes and perspective of deity.
The bottom line is that a dependent dying universe running down towards heat death and maximum entropy will have nothing to wind itself up with and thus necessitates a non-dependent first cause that is non-dependent and self existing. The only logical alternative is an infinite regression of dependent causes, none of which ever has the capability to bring itself into existence, and thus we have no basis for existence. And we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
In short, God is both a philosophical and scientific necessity, and needs to be an option considered in science education as an alternative to the current religion of philosophical naturalism and atheism.
