I’ve always loved science.  I’ve never loved math (which is required for so much of science and a large reason I did not pursue it as a career) but science itself has always been a favorite of mine.  From an early age I loved the process of asking question, finding answers and explaining the way things work.

I also love faith.  But faith and science, it would seem, have not always played well in the sandbox together.  I’ve taken a couple classes on the subject, read a few books and still my curiosity hasn’t been satiated.  I’m certainly no expert in science or faith and have more training as a theologian than a scientist.  That is to say, please forgive any ignorant comments that may follow.

Discovery will air a show for the first time tonight called ‘Curiosity’.  It is a show that promises to ask the hardest questions and try to provide insight from scientific inquiry.  To begin, they aren’t pulling any punches.  Their very first episode is titled ‘Did God Create the Universe?‘  But the title may be misleading.  The first question that pops into my mind is ‘Can science fully prove that God/gods didn’t create the universe?’  The answer to that question will always be ‘No.’

The host of the show will be the famous physicist Stephen Hawking.  Hawking made a splash years ago in his book A Brief History of Time by saying that if we could understand the universe we could glimpse the ‘mind of God’.  This has led to millions of speculations about Hawking’s personal views of religion.  In his most recent book The Grand Design he states that current theories of the Big Bang make the concept of God redundant.  He says this,

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

In the previews for the show on Discovery Hawking briefly argues this,

“But here’s the crucial bit; the laws of nature themselves tell us that not only can the universe have popped into existence like a proton, and have required nothing in terms of energy, but also that it is possible that nothing caused the Big Bang.”

Hawking says that he has no intention of offending anyone of faith but that science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator.  Fair enough, I believe him.  He seems a good natured chap.  Part of his explanation is the concept of the multiverse or the theory that there are multiple universes (including our own) that make up everything.  Add to that quantum fluctuations, where ‘virtual particles’ can appear and be measured and you have a Big Bang in no need of a…Bangger.  (Or is it Banger?)  Anyway, I digress.

Now, given the fact that I’m not theoretical physicist and the equation for quantum fluctuations looks like gibberish to me, I do have a few questions that arise when you jump to the conclusion that this means there is no need for God/gods or that God/gods cannot exist.  In all fairness, Hawking doesn’t seem to be saying that the existence of a supernatural being is not possible, but simple not necessary to invoke.  Fair enough.  But most take it a step further and just rule out the possibility based on these theories.  But, do these theories and these observations warrant conclusions about the possibility of God/gods creating the universe?

For example, I find the conclusion that the Big Bang could have happened from nothing odd.  It’s bassed on the above fluctuations which seem to indicate particles arising from nothing.  They weren’t there before, then they are (we know because of measurements) and then perhaps they’re gone.  But isn’t it a bit premature to be drawing conclusions about these particles and using those conclusions as the basis for the origins of the universe?  We used to think that atoms were the smallest of the particles.  Then protons, neutrons and electrons.  Smaller still, we have discovered, are particles known as quarks, those tiny particles that make up the p, t and e.  Who is to say that these virtual particles come from nothing?  Have we explored the depths of all possibilities and 100% concluded that particles really are coming from nothing at all?  I highly doubt that.  But as noted earlier, my assumption about this could be wrong as well.  It just doesn’t seem good to me to make such large scale conclusions about origins or supernatural beings based on laws of nature we don’t fully understand.  Whose to say that in 10 years we won’t discover the cause for those particles that seem to come from nothing?  That would certainly muck op the wheels of the theory.

Then there is the multiverse theory.  There is, of course, no proof for multiple universes.  And no real way to test for them.  We can make guesses that there might be and perhaps in a few years we find a way to test for them and conclusively prove that there are multiple universes.  But why must that rule out a creator?  Where did those multiple universes come from?  Again, does the existence of these things really rule out the possibility of a God?  I don’t think so.  Do they explain things we have observed?  Certainly, but to jump from there to the conclusions that there is nothing else moves you from the field of science.

Take an example from mathematician John Lennox which I will paraphrase here.  Say my Aunt Matilda bakes a cake and brings it before the scientific nobel laureates of the world.  As master of ceremonies I ask them to please explain the cake for me.  Well, the chemist will certainly break down the reactions that caused the baking process and the currently elements that make up the cake and frosting, the physicist will break it down into it’s particles and the atomic and perhaps subatomic levels ect., and what we will be left with is a beautiful description on many levels of the cake before us.  But if ask them, “Why did she bake the cake?”, they will have no reply.  Their purview is to observe and describe.  And those descriptions will certainly have consequences.  Such that, perhaps the frosting is of the kind that is commonly found in wedding cakes, or the the particular make up has been seen in cakes used at birthdays ect.  But these are just conjectures because it would take a certain revelation from my Aunt Maltilda to truly know ‘Why’.  And that in short, is part of the limitation of scientific inquiry.

Can science reveal to me that certain forces, such as gravity, working under certain conditions can seemingly create something from nothing?  Yes.  But can it tell me why?  Why there is something instead of nothing?  Why gravity came to be to begin with?  I don’t think science can properly answer those questions, at least not in a definitive observable way.

I will end with another quote from John Lennox which can be found here:

But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking’s claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own  -  but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for ‘the blue touch paper’ to be lit to ‘set the universe going’, the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?

Much of the rationale behind Hawking’s argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.

If anyone responds, lets remember to be civil.  And please remember that I’m just as fallible as the next.