Scientific Evidence for God?

March 8, 2013Allen Hainline

Reasonable Faith UTDwww.OriginsDiscussion.info

Can Science Disprove God?

• Suppose that there were no scientific evidence for God, would that disprove His existence?– No! strong evidence for God beyond science

• Moral argument• Cosmological argument (Leibniz version)• Fulfilled prophecies• Miracles• Religious experience

– But some would claim science is only source of knowledge

Can All Knowledge Be Scientific?

What is wrong with these claims?– “Don’t believe in anything you can’t perceive with your 5

senses”– “If you can’t verify something scientifically you can’t know it”

They are self-refuting!• Like saying “No English sentence is longer than 3 words”• These claims cannot be verified by our senses or science• Science itself assumes logic and mathematics are valid but these cannot be

proven scientifically

3

• Are science and Christianity at war?– No – historians of science reject warfare metaphor

• Science birthed out of Christian culture• Science studies only nature

– Generally assumes nothing supernatural happens– Inability to detect supernatural based primarily on assumptions– Hard in principle to show nothing exists beyond nature by studying nature

• Do we expect science to detect God creating now?– No, we’re in the 7th day – the day of rest

• Can God choose to use some natural processes to create?– Yes, perhaps Genesis hints at this by using 2 different Hebrew words

translated as ‘create’• Is there tension at some points?

– Yes, primarily related to statements in Bible

Points of Contradictionbetween Bible and Science

5

Science Then Science Now Bible

Earth held up by elephants or by the Greek God Atlas

Earth surrounded by empty space in its orbit

“He hangs the earth on nothing” Job 26:7

Water flows into the ocean only through rivers and rainfall

Springs in the ocean were discovered in the 1970’s

“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea?” Job 38:16

Ocean floor assumed flat Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains

Ocean floor contains deep valleys & mountains (2 Sam 22:16, Jonah 2:6)

Sick people must be bled Blood brings oxygen and nutrients to sustain cells

“Life of the flesh is in the blood” Lev 17:11

Did not understand importance of washing with running water

Washing with running water critical to washing off bacteria

When dealing with disease, wash hands with running water Lev 15:11

Did not understand need for sanitary practices (e.g. Bubonic plague !)

Critical to minimizing spread of diseases

Quarantining, burying human waste, hyssop as antibacterial agent Lev. 13:45-6; Deut 23:12-13

Air weightless Air has weight Air has weight (Job 28:25)

ChristianView of Origins

• Even in early 20th century, many scientists believed universe was eternal and static

• Bible claimed that:– Universe created out of nothing (Gen 1:1, Heb

11:3)– Even time had a beginning

• Bible claims God existed before time began (Titus 1:2, Jude 24)

6

Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause2. The universe began to exist3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

– Science has shown that even space and time had a beginning• Cause must be outside of time, space, matter; extremely powerful

– Can anyone think of a being that fits this description?

7

Consensus Science:Universe had a beginning

“Worst birthday present ever” given to Stephen Hawking at 70th birthday

• Hawking: “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God”

• Vilenkin: "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.“

• “With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

• Even time and space cannot be extended into eternal past– BVG Theorem

Fine-Tuning of Universe

“Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration.” Stephen Hawking

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. - Dr. Paul Davies, Physicist ASU

Our Universeis Finely-Tuned

– Among possible universes, only a tiny fraction would permit life

– Finely-Tuned in 3 Aspects• Laws• Fundamental constants of laws• Initial conditions

“If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely.” David Deutch (Oxford Physicist, Fellow of Royal Society)

Fine-Tuning of Gravity

If gravity can vary up to strong nuclear force strength: – If stronger by 1 in 1034, stars burn out too fast for life – If stronger by 1 in 1036, stars implode– If stronger by 1 in 1040, universe dominated by black holes not

stars– If weaker by 1 in 1036, stars lose material to radiation pressure– If too weak, no stars or planets possible

“It is an unexplained miracle that gravity is as weak as it is” SusskindMultiple finely-tuned life-permitting criteria make it look even more “rigged”

1 chance in 1036 is equivalent to– Color one tiny grain of sand red– Mix it in sandpile in Eurasia up to 5

times the height of moon– Randomly select the 1 red grain of

sand

Comprehending the Fine-Tuning

Initial Conditions Finely-Tuned

Oxford Physicist Roger Penrose computed probability for our universe to begin in such an ordered state– Fine-tuned to 1 in 10 to power of 10123

• Writing number out requires more 0’s than particles in universe• “This number tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been”• Much more improbable than 1 monkey typing out all writings in human

history in a particular order– Otherwise universe dominated by black holes!

Argument for God’s ExistenceBased on Fine-Tuning

1. Fine-tuning due to law, chance or design2. Not Due to Law3. Not Due to Chance4. Therefore the fine-tuning is due to design

The most plausible Designer at this fundamental level is God

Argument doesn’t require that universe has maximum amount of life

Origin of Life: Evidence for God?

A single simple bacteria has the information content of an Encyclopedia– 250 billion fit into a single teaspoon (information content of 20 stacks of Encyclopedia

copies piled up to the moon)

Simplest known organism has at least 400 proteinsRatio of functional to non functional proteins was 10-63 for one 100 amino acids long (Robert Sauer, MIT)Leading theory (RNA World) still requires enormous complexity to get first self-replicating

15

Evidence for God from Origin of Life

• “For biological evolution that is governed primarily by natural selection to take off, efficient systems for replication and [making proteins] are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection.” Eugene Koonin

• Koonin describes a “dreary vicious circle: what would be the selective force behind the evolution of [a system making proteins] before there were functional proteins? And, of course, there could be no proteins without [it]”

• Estimates chance of natural processes in our universe producing a self-replicating cell as 1 chance in 101018

Origin of Life Problems

Can’t form long chains of the right kind of molecules“All speculation on the origin of life on Earth by chance cannot survive the first criterion of life: proteins are left-handed, sugars in DNA and RNA are right-handed.” Yockey

Right and left-handed versions of amino acids – credit NASA

Current leading theory for the origin of life is compared to“a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken”Robert Shapiro (Origin of Life expert)

Key Scientific Reasons to Doubt Darwinism

1. Common Design over Common Descent– Much reuse not along evolutionary lines

2. Fossils– Consistent with Progressive Creationism not Evolution– Far fewer transitional fossils than expected– Cambrian Explosion defies Darwinian explanation

3. Darwinian Mechanism Inadequate– Natural selection powerful at eliminating unfit not creating new

features• Lots of simultaneous mutations needed for new feature/protein

– Mutations cannot explain protein evolution4. Irreducible Complexity

– Flagellum, Protein Translation System

Common Descent or Common Design?

Berra’s claim: similarities due to common ancestry via evolutionary process• Just as history of Corvettes reflects descent

with modificationBut we know Corvette’s were designed!Designers frequently reuse components

• Design could have purposes in similarities• Facilitates biodegrading• Food chain requires similarities

Predictions:• Common descent predicts reuse along

evolutionary lines• Common design predicts some reuse that could

not be interpreted as due to evolution

Berra’s Blunder

Much Reuse Not Along Evolutionary Lines

“It is vanishingly improbable that exactly the same evolutionary pathway should ever be traveled twice.” Dawkins• Dawkins estimates eyes evolved 40-60 times

– Common underlying biochemistry (rhodopsin)• Same design and genes between:

– Bats and dolphins for echo location• “evolved by identical genetic changes in bats and dolphins”

– Human and octopus eyes– “Common ancestors” incapable

Protein Evolution Problem

Experimental results: evolving between similar proteins

Requirements for evolving between dissimilar organisms

Source: Doug Axe

Experiments by Gauger&Axe show problems for simplest of cases– At least 7 mutations to evolve one protein to a very similar one– Time required for evolution would take trillions of times longer than

most generous estimate of age of earth

What about so-called “Bad” Designs ?

“God wouldn’t have done it that way” is a theological not a scientific claim

God may have other goals• Design trade-offs rarely lead to individual features being optimal (but overall optimization)• More people freely accept Christ in an imperfect world

• Consider testimoniesMost claims debunked by current science• Panda’s thumb is very efficient• Organs such as appendix not vestigial• Eye is designed “optimal”, utilizes optical fibers• Junk DNA is useful

• Thinking it was junk may be “biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology.“ Mattick

Darwinism not Intelligent Design is sometimes a science stopper!

Questions

• Different interpretations of Gen exist– I’m not trying here to argue for a particular

interpretation on age but if you become convinced from science of an old universe this should not be seen as evidence against the Bible

• Not a lot of predictions or details but there are some– Bible aims to teach us about God not science

What about Conflicts between Science and Naturalism?

Origins Issue

Science Naturalistic Response

Universe Universe not eternal (BVG + 2nd Law)- Includes time and space

Maybe something can come from nothing after all?(But nothing != Quantum vacuum)

Initial conditions of universe

Chances universe’s initial conditions would support life(1 in 1010123)

Atheist Sean Carroll: Why would God have finely-tuned the universe so beyond what is necessary?(To leave evidence of creation)

Fine-tuning of laws and constants

Miniscule changes to each of 4 fundamental forces or certain particle masses or other constants would result in a lifeless universe

Vast numbers of other universes coupled with widely varying laws(Zero empirical evidence for either)

Life No plausible naturalistic theory “occurred in spite of minuscule odds such as 1:10300 and which is accepted only because we are here. “ Schwabe(Circular reasoning)

Diversity of Life

Microevolution + roughly increasing levels of complexity in fossil record over time

Evolution is as proven as gravity(To prove naturalistic evolution one has to show whatever happened was not particularly improbable)

Consciousness and free will

No account for origin Consciousness and free will may be illusions; “We just need more time”(Popper: promissory materialism: imagined evidence is not evidence!)

Note that Naturalism is falsified unless it accounts for all origins issues

Atheist Thomas Nagel’s Honest Appraisal

“[D]oubts about the reductionist account of life go against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough, both with respect to the evolution of life forms through accidental mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution.““It is no longer legitimate simply to imagine a sequence of gradually evolving phenotypes, as if their appearance through mutations in the DNA were unproblematic -- as Richard Dawkins does for the evolution of the eye.”From recent book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False

Origin of Biological Information“Each (human) cell... contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together” DawkinsA single E. coli bacteria has the information content of an Encyclopedia

– 250 billion E. coli fit into a single teaspoon (information content of 20 stacks of Encyclopedia copies piled up to the moon)

Simplest organisms: Non-parasitic (~1500 genes), Parasitic (~470 genes)Origin of Life theories fail miserably in explaining origin of information and information processing

42

Protein Translation System

Source: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.eduSystem exhibits irreducible complexity– A functional subset exists from which cannot be further reduced without

losing all functionality– Darwinian process works step-by-step where each step has functional

advantage 43

Eugene Koonin’s Origin of Life Paper

“For biological evolution that is governed primarily by natural selection to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection.”

– “The RNA World concept … so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system”

• “Eternal inflation offers a viable alternative that is untenable in a finite universe, i.e. that a coupled system of translation and replication emerged by chance.”

• Anthropic reasoning would still require that this chance-only path be more likely than evolution!“It is clear that OORT [Origin of Replication and Translation] is not just the hardest problem in all of evolutionary biology but one that is qualitatively distinct from the rest.”

– Koonin describes a “dreary vicious circle: what would be the selective force behind the evolution of the extremely complex translation system before there were functional proteins? And, of course, there could be no proteins without a sufficiently effective translation system.”

– 1 chance in 101018 based on 1% RNA in top 10km of 1 earth-sized habitable planet per 10 solar systems in entire universe

• Koonin considers his RNA synthesis rate “a deliberate, gross over-estimate”– “There is no empirical or rational justification for theorizing that the random shuffling of nucleotides

could generate instructions for a metabolic network.”

Biology’s Worst Problem in Irreducible Complexity:

Protein Translation System

Can’t rely on evolution to evolve the first protein-based evolver!Koonin appeals to an infinite multiverse to solve the problem:“Any conceivable scenario of life's evolution necessarily requires combinations of highly unlikely conditions and events prior to the onset of biological evolution, including the abiogenic synthesis of fairly complex and not particularly stable organic molecules, such as nucleotides, the concentration of these molecules within appropriate compartments, and their polymerization yielding polynucleotides of sufficient size and diversity. Thus, anthropic selection appears to be an inevitable aspect of life's evolution.”

Minimal Complexity of Protein Translation System (based on E-Coli)– Ribosome has 52 proteins (7459 amino acids), 4566 RNA nucleotides

• 90K atoms in large subunit alone• Craig Venter’s team unsuccessful in making synthetic ribosomes: “Nobody knows how to get ones that can actually do protein synthesis…. And you can’t have life without it.”

– 106 proteins, 31 tRNA’s, & 20 aaRS’s (to establish genetic code)– Available amino acids, ATP for energy to drive reactions– mRNA information content to direct protein synthesis and via genetic code– How do you evolve an integrated code-driven system for making proteins before proteins even exist? – Natural selection can only favor some organisms over others not by itself innovate!

Is there Bias in Science?

Consider one of the peer reviewers of this article:• “In this review, I will simply try to rephrase what a serious problem Koonin

has identified according to me, and I will argue that I am afraid his answer to this problem might open too broad an avenue to the supporters of intelligent design.”

• “I am afraid his present (and arguable) solution, although fairly underlining one of the limits of traditional evolutionary thinking, could open a huge door to the tenants of intelligent design.” Eric Bapteste

• Bapteste also questions Darwin’s Tree of Life:– "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence

at all that the tree of life is a reality."

Junk DNA

• Example of evidence against intelligent design– Junk DNA

• Prediction– If God, no necessarily no junk but minimal initial junk …

• ENCODE project– At least 80%– 1 author – “likely that 80% will go to 100%”– “almost inconceivably intricate”– There is more to explain -> RNA splicing codes …– “surprising” comments common (from ev perspective)

What about Metabolism First?

• Orgel “In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously – and every reason to believe that they cannot.”

• Orgel’s last paper – the “solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help.”

Opposition to ID

• Redefine ID as religious “Intelligent Design Creationism”• Demonize and discredit opponents• Don’t allow papers to enter into peer reviewed journals

– Then discredit ID movement for lack of peer-reviewed papers• Play up science vs. religion warfare myth invented in enlightenment

– “Despite a developing consensus among scholars that science and Christianity have not been at war, the notion of conflict has refused to die” Coleman and Numbers

• Presume philosophical naturalism – Everything viewed as a research problem – independent of evidence

• “We just need more time to find the naturalistic solution”• Any counter evidence viewed as “God of the gaps”

– Science actually would require major changes to overturn design evidence:• Beginning of universe• Fine-tuning of initial conditions of universe and constants• Origin of Life• Evolution of new genes, irreducibly complex systems

Craig Venter Creates Synthetic Life Form

Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and

incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world's first synthetic life form

The Guardian, May 20, 2010Ian Samples, Science Correspondent

Synthetic BiologyPractical Applications:• Biomedicine• Biotechnology

Synthetic Biology and the Origin of Life

Synthetic Biology• Create artificial life

• Build life in the lab starting with simple chemicals

• Free to use any means available

Origin of Life• Understand how life

originated on Earth

• Recapitulate origin of life in lab starting with simple chemicals

• Constrained by condition of early Earth

Trends/Notes• CD disbelieved by Woese and Doolittle and other

experts studying genomics etc. and trying to build trees– Would require multiple origins– But then how do we get a universal genetic code (nearly

univ.)• Also need common nucleotides, amino acids, aminoacyl t-rna

synthetases etc.– Journal articles document how multiple of each of these could have been

chosen other than what is actually used in life

– Prob then is that we are close to a LUCA but not close enough• How would one explain 5 independent origins of the same

blueprint for life?

• Add quote from Orgel about bridging the gap between prim life and DNA/protein world– Note how science uses the Principle of Continuity

to assess theories• If there is no gradual set of plausible steps in a

proposed pathway from A->B then the theory is not considered plausible

– If we apply this to OOL we see that none are!

Venter• The lay press likes to talk about creating life from scratch. But while we can create

and develop new species, we're not creating life from scratch. We talked about the ribosome; we tried to make synthetic ribosomes, starting with the genetic code and building them — the ribosome is such an incredibly beautiful complex entity, you can make synthetic ribosomes, but they don't function totally yet. Nobody knows how to get ones that can actually do protein synthesis. But starting with an intact ribosome is cheating anyway right? That is not building life from scratch but relying on billions of years of evolution. When starting with an existing protein synthesis machinery we can create new life forms, we can create a synthetic chromosome that we can now do transplants of, and develop new species with very unique properties — so we can create human-made species — but we're not really creating life from scratch. You can boot up a system but right now all life derives from other living entities. What we're doing is really no different, because we're just putting a new operating system into a living cell.

Church• The ribosome, both looking at the past and at the future, is a very significant structure — it's

the most complicated thing that is present in all organisms. Craig does comparative genomics, and you find that almost the only thing that's in common across all organisms is the ribosome. And it's recognizable; it's highly conserved. So the question is, how did that thing come to be? And if I were to be an intelligent design defender, that's what I would focus on; how did the ribosome come to be? The only way we're going to become good scientists and prove that it could come into being spontaneously is to develop a much better in vitro system where you can make smaller versions of the ribosome that still work, and make all kinds of variations on it to do really useful things but that are really wildly different, and so forth, and get real familiarity with this really complicated machine. Because it does a really great thing: it does this mutual information trick, but not from changing something kind of trivial, from DNA to RNA; that's really easy. It can change from DNA three nucleotides into one amino acid. That's really marvelous. We need to understand that better.

• VENTER: And you can't have life without it.• …• CHURCH: But isn't it the case that, if we take all the life forms we have so far, isn't the

minimum for the ribosome about 53 proteins and 3 polynucleotides? And hasn't that kind of already reached a plateau where adding more genomes doesn‘t reduce that number of proteins?