The Case for a Creator (13 page)

“So,” I said to Meyer in summing up, “while much of science and biblical religion are concerned with different things, they clearly do have some overlapping territory.”

“Precisely. And when that happens, either they agree or disagree. The judgment of nineteenth-century historians, who were writing mainly out of an Enlightenment framework, was that where they did overlap, they invariably disagreed—and of the two domains, science was a more warranted system of belief. They believed conflict would continually grow between science and biblical religion.”

“What do
you
believe?” I asked.

“My judgment is quite different,” he said. “I believe that the testimony of science
supports
theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction.”

He paused momentarily, then punched his conclusion: “Science,
done right
, points toward God.”

CREATIO EX NIHILO

Meyer’s perspective couldn’t be more different from the one I had when I was studying evolution in school. I had concluded that the persuasive naturalistic theories of Darwin eliminated any need for God. Meyer, however, was convinced that science and faith are pointing toward the same truth. I decided to press him for more details.

“Could you list, say, half a dozen examples of how you believe science points toward theism?” I asked.

Meyer settled deeper into his chair. “I would start,” he said, “with the new cosmology—the Big Bang theory and its accompanying theoretical underpinning in general relativity. These two theories now point to a definite beginning of the universe. The fact that most scientists now believe that energy, matter, space, and time had a beginning is profoundly antimaterialistic.

“You can invoke neither time nor space nor matter nor energy nor the laws of nature to explain the origin of the universe. General relativity points to the need for a cause that transcends those domains. And theism affirms the existence of such an entity—namely, God.

“In short,” he added, “naturalism is on hard times in cosmology; the deeper you get into it, the harder it is to get rid of the God hypothesis. Taken together, the Big Bang and general relativity provide a scientific description of what Christians call
creatio ex nihilo
—creation out of nothing. As Nobel Prize–winner Arno Penzias said about the Big Bang, ‘The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole.’ ”
¹²

Meyer waited, apparently to see if I had any further questions, but I motioned for him to continue with his examples.

“The second category of evidence would be for ‘anthropic fine-tuning.’ This means the fundamental laws and parameters of physics have precise numerical values that could have been otherwise. That is, there’s no fundamental reason why these values have to be the way they are. Yet all of these laws and constants conspire in a mathematically incredible way to make life in the universe possible.”

I asked him for an example. “Take the expansion rate of the universe, which is fine-tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion,” he said. “That is, if it were changed by one part in either direction—a little faster, a little slower—we could not have a universe that would be capable of supporting life.

“As Sir Fred Hoyle commented, ‘A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.’
¹³

“Well, maybe this looks fine-tuned because there actually is a fine-tuner. In the opinion of physicist Paul Davies, ‘The impression of design is overwhelming.’
¹⁴
And I thoroughly agree. This is powerful evidence for intelligent design.

“The third example of science pointing toward God is the origin of life and the origin of information necessary to bring life into existence,” he continued. “Life at its root requires information, which is stored in DNA and protein molecules.

“Richard Dawkins of Oxford said that ‘the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.’
¹⁵
If you reflect on that, you realize that computers run on software programs that are produced by intelligent engineers. Every experience we have about information—whether it’s a computer code, hieroglyphic inscription, a book, or a cave painting—points toward intelligence. The same is true about the information inside every cell in every living creature.”

“Isn’t that just an argument from ignorance?” I asked. “Scientists may not currently be able to find any explanation for how life began, but that doesn’t necessarily point toward a supernatural conclusion.”

“This is
not
an argument from ignorance,” Meyer insisted. “We’re not inferring design just because the naturalistic evolutionary theories all fail to explain information. We infer design because all those theories fail
and
we know of another causal entity that is capable of producing information—namely, intelligence. Personally, I find this to be a very strong argument indeed.”

AN ENSEMBLE OF EVIDENCE

Continuing on to the fourth example, Meyer said, “Then there’s the evidence for design in molecular machines that defy explanation by Darwinian natural selection. These integrative, complex systems in biological organisms—which microbiologist Michael Behe calls ‘irreducibly complex’—include signal transduction circuits, sophisticated motors, and all kinds of biological circuitry.”

“What’s the argument based on this?” I asked.

“You see, these biological machines need all of their various parts in order to function. But how could you ever build such a system by a Darwinian process of natural selection acting on random variations? Natural selection only preserves things that perform a function—in other words, which help the organism survive to the next generation. That’s survival of the fittest.

“The problem with irreducibly complex systems is that they perform no function until all the parts are present and working together in close coordination with one another. So natural selection cannot help you build such systems; it can only preserve them once they’ve been built. And it’s virtually impossible for evolution to take such a huge leap by mere chance to create the whole system at once.

“Of course, this forces the question: how did the biochemical machine arise? Behe says maybe these biological systems look designed because they really
were
designed. After all, whenever we see irreducibly complex systems and we know how they arose, invariably a designer was the cause.”

“How strong of an argument do you think that is?” I asked.

“I think it’s very strong,” he replied with a smile. “And you see that in the weak objections that are proposed by Darwinists. And again, that’s just one more example. The next one would be the Cambrian explosion, which is yet another striking piece of evidence for design in the history of life.”

I told him that in a previous interview Jonathan Wells had already explained the basics of Biology’s Big Bang. “He talked about it primarily in terms of being an argument against Darwinism,” I said.

“Indeed, it is,” Meyer replied. “You have between twenty and thirty-five completely novel body plans that come online in the Cambrian. You have a huge jump in complexity, it’s sudden, and you have no transitional intermediates.

“But this is also affirmative evidence for design, because in our experience information invariably is the result of conscious activity. Here we have the geologically sudden infusion of a massive amount of new biological information needed to create these body plans, far beyond what any Darwinian mechanism can produce. Darwinism simply can’t account for it; design is a better explanation.

“Think about how suddenly these new body plans emerged. As one paleontologist said, ‘What I want to know from my biology friends is just how fast does this evolution have to happen before they stop calling it evolution?’ Darwin said nature takes no sudden leaps. Yet here’s a huge leap—which is what intelligent agents cause. Consequently, the Cambrian explosion provides not just a negative case against Darwinian evolution, but also a compelling positive argument for design.”

“All right,” I said, “I asked for half a dozen examples. What would be the sixth?”

Meyer thought for a moment. “I’d say human consciousness certainly supports a theistic view of human nature,” he said. “Judaism and Christianity clearly teach that we are more than just matter—we’re not a ‘computer made of meat,’ in the words of Marvin Minsky, but we’re made in God’s image.

“We have the capacity for self-reflection, for representational art, for language, for creativity. Science can’t account for this kind of consciousness merely from the interaction of physical matter in the brain. Where did it come from? Again, I think theism provides the best explanation.”

Meyer scooted to the edge of his chair. “So what we have here,” he said, wrapping up his impromptu presentation in a tone of urgency, “is an ensemble of half a dozen evidences that point to a transcendent, intelligent cause. This is mind-boggling stuff! Scientists in the nineteenth century weren’t aware of these things when they said naturalism accounts for everything. Thanks to the discoveries of the last five decades, we know a lot more today.”

“Based on the evidence you’ve mentioned,” I said, “how do you complete the case for God?”

“First, theism, with its concept of a transcendent Creator, provides a more causally adequate explanation of the Big Bang than a naturalistic explanation can offer,” he said. “The cause of the universe must transcend matter, space, and time, which were brought into existence with the Big Bang. The Judeo-Christian God has precisely this attribute of transcendence. Yet naturalism, by definition, denies the existence of any entity beyond the closed system of nature.

“The fine-tuning of the physical laws and constants of the universe and the precise configuration of its initial conditions, dating back to the very origin of the universe itself, suggest the need for a cause that’s intelligent. Theism affirms the existence of an entity that’s not only transcendent but intelligent as well—namely, God. Thus, theism can explain both Big Bang cosmology and the anthropic fine-tuning.

“Pantheism can’t explain the origin of the universe, because pantheists believe in an impersonal god that’s coextensive with the physical universe. Such a god can’t bring the universe into being from nothing, since such a god doesn’t exist independently of the physical universe. If initially the physical universe didn’t exist, then the pantheistic god wouldn’t have existed either. If it didn’t exist, it couldn’t cause the universe to exist.”

“What about deism?” I interjected, referring to the belief that God created the world but has since let it run on its own. “Can’t deism account for the origin of the universe too?”

“Yes, I’ll provide that caveat—deism can do the same,” he acknowledged. “But I believe the existence of design subsequent to the Big Bang undermines deism as an adequate explanation.

“You see, deism can’t explain the evidence of discrete acts of design or creation after the universe was created. The deistic god never intervenes in nature, yet we’re seeing evidence of intelligent design in the history of life. For example, the high information content in the cell provides compelling evidence for an act of intelligent design of the first life, long after the beginning of the universe.

“Taken together, what we know today gives us heightened confidence—
from science
—that God exists. The weight of the evidence is very, very impressive—in fact, in my opinion it’s sufficiently conclusive to say that theism provides the best explanation for the ensemble of scientific evidence we’ve been discussing.

“Science and faith are not at war. When scientific evidence and biblical teaching are correctly interpreted, they can and do support each other. I’d say to anyone who doubts that: investigate the evidence yourself.”

Meyer’s whirlwind tour was exhilarating. At first blush, the cumulative case for God, built point by point from the discoveries of science, seemed staggering. Of course, I had a whole slew of follow-up questions, some of which I intended to pose to Meyer, and others I would save for the experts I planned to interview in each of the categories of evidence Meyer had mentioned. I decided to begin with the issue of just how much evidence for God is needed to establish the case for a Creator.

THE GOD HYPOTHESIS

In the legal arena, different courtrooms have different standards of proof. In criminal cases, the prosecutor must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In most civil cases, the plaintiff must prevail by a considerably lesser standard, called a preponderance of the evidence. In some civil cases, there’s even a third level of proof situated between the other two: clear and convincing evidence.
¹⁶

When I asked Meyer what standard of proof he considered appropriate in the theological realm, he gave me an interesting history lesson on the topic of evidence for God. I decided to sit back and let him talk, reserving my follow-up questions for the end.

“One extreme is to deny that there is any evidential basis for Christian belief and instead to say that all we need is faith,” Meyer began. “That’s known as ‘fideism.’ This came out of the Enlightenment, with the perceived failure of certain theistic proofs for the existence of God.

“In particular, French philosopher René Descartes offered some pretty sloppy proofs to try to establish with absolute certainty that God exists. He used what are called ‘deductive proofs,’ where you have major and minor premises, and if these premises can be shown to be true and the logic of the argument is correct, then the conclusion follows with certainty. For example, ‘All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.’ Descartes set the bar unrealistically high—that is, using his proofs to try to create ironclad certainty that God exists—and he couldn’t clear it. You can’t absolutely prove—or disprove—the existence of God.