Science Discovers God by Ariel A. Roth

Preface

      Do human lives have any meaning or purpose to them? Does God exist? If He does, why does He permit so much suffering? And do we have to believe in Him? After all, hasn’t science been able to explain most things without having to invoke God? Our deepest thoughts struggle with such questions as we search for answers about our origin, our purpose for being, and our ultimate destiny. Few are able to ignore these perplexing enigmas as we contemplate the mysteries of our being and the universe we live in. The issue of whether God exists or not is one that simply will not go away.
      Fortunately, when it comes to ultimate questions about origins, all is not conjecture. In recent years scientists have made a number of remarkable discoveries that reveal such precision and complexity in the universe around us that it is becoming very difficult to suggest that everything resulted just from chance. It looks as if a very perceptive God had to be involved in designing the marvelous intricacies that we find everywhere in the universe.
      Some scientists will immediately insist that science cannot consider God, because it and God represent separate realms of thought. Unfortunately, such a view imposes a narrow outlook on science that limits its ability to find all truth. Science cannot discover God and His role as long as it excludes Him from its explanatory menu. If science hopes to provide meaningful and truthful answers to our deepest questions, it needs to get out of the prison of secularism in which it has now trapped itself. Science should be open to the possibility that God exists and not exclude Him as belonging only to another realm of inquiry. This book approaches the question of God’s existence from the perspective that science is--or at least should be--an open search for truth, and that we will allow the data of nature to direct us wherever it may lead. Frequently science itself indulges in various speculations and hypotheses, such as the existence of other universes beyond ours or of life originating all by itself. To be consistent, science should also be willing to consider the possibility that there is a God. Such open-mindedness could be important in case God does exist.
      It is interesting that the pioneers of modern science, such as Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Pascal, Linné, and Newton all included the concept of God in their scientific outlook. They often spoke of Him, and they considered their scientific investigations as the continuing discovery of the laws that He had created. Those intellectual giants demonstrated how science and an awareness of God can work together as we study nature. Since that time science and God have gone separate ways, and at present science essentially ignores the concept of a deity. Furthermore, some scientists are deeply concerned that a religious takeover of society would seriously hamper science. On the other hand, we find suggestions of a renewed interest in God on the part of some scientists and other academicians. This has resulted in part because of recent significant discoveries such as the very exact values necessary for the basic forces of physics, and the extremely complex biochemical pathways of living organisms. Such findings raise grave doubts about any suggestion that they just happened to have come about by chance, and it is becoming more reasonable to believe in the existence of a God behind the origin of the universe than in the extreme improbabilities we have to postulate for a universe that came into being on its own.
      This book follows the broad approach that I believe is essential to provide the comprehensive view that the question of God’s existence deserves. Because the most significant challenges to His existence have come from science, the discussion focuses essentially on scientifically related topics. In order to help the general reader evaluate the findings and conclusions of science, I have included a number of accounts of how scientists make their discoveries, especially those details that seem to touch on the question of God’s existence.
      This book starts with a brief historical review that leads us to the surprising fact that four out of 10 scientists in the United States believe in a personal God who answers their prayers. The paradox is that very few, if any, of those same scientists will discuss God in scientific journals and textbooks. What many scientists believe in and what they publish about when they take a scientific stance, can be quite different things. The book then discusses a number of key issues related to God’s existence. These include the intricate organization of the matter of the universe and the precision of the forces of physics. Then a number of biological topics will follow, including the origin of life, the genetic code, and such complexities as the eye and the brain. Next we will consider the problem time poses for evolution when we analyze the fossil record. It turns out that the suggested geologic eons are totally inadequate for the various explanations postulated.
      The last third of the book addresses the intriguing question of why, in the context of so much data that seems to require a God in order to explain what we see, scientists still remain silent about Him. We will broach that question from the perspective of both the sociological strength of dominant ideas, such as evolution, and the exclusiveness and elitism of a highly successful scientific enterprise. The conclusion of the book is that science is providing abundant evidence that there is a God. The hope is that scientists are going to allow Him back into the scientific perspective, as once was the case for the pioneers of modern science.
      This book deals mainly with two strongly contrasting worldviews. On the one hand, we find those who limit reality only to what they can simply observe in nature. For them, that is essentially all there is. This fits closely with the current scientific mindset or ethos that excludes God. Others believe there exists a transcendent reality above the currently observable. Such a view would mean that our existence does have ultimate meaning. The Being who designed us has endowed us with such attributes as consciousness, understanding, concern for others, and a sense of justice. In other words, there is more to reality than simple observable matter, and our existence has purpose to it. Whichever of these two approaches we adopt has a profound effect on our worldview and personal philosophy. This treatise proposes that the current separation between these two contrasting worldviews is not valid. The data of science itself is essentially forcing us to conclude that something unusual is going on, and that it looks as if a knowledgeable and transcendent God was involved in creating the complexities that scientific observation keeps uncovering.
      Is this book objective? Is it free of bias? Unfortunately the answer in both cases is no. Who can claim complete objectivity? On the other hand, I have made every effort to be fair to the data and have paid special attention to the best data. I then invite readers to draw their conclusions on the basis of the data and not just generally accepted inferences. This book is not simply a survey of prevailing interpretations. Some conclusions are not mainline. If we are going to improve on accepted views, we have to be willing to escape from them.
      Several terms in the text, such as “truth,” “science,” “religion,” “God,” “evolution,” and “creation,” are vital to the dialogue, but have varied use and meaning. I invite the reader to use the glossary at the end of this book to clarify their meaning as used in this discussion. In some cases I have identified special use in the text.
      Having spent more than 50 years dealing with the controversy between science and religion, I very much realize how emotionally laden the worldview issues that delineate one’s personal philosophy can become. I am also fully aware that some will find my approach unpleasant. For this I am sorry. We all have much to learn from each other, and I would urge those with different views to keep communicating and contributing to humanity’s total fund of knowledge.

                  Ariel A. Roth
                  Loma Linda, California