Creation and the Scientific Method

An Atheist's Argument
A couple years ago I was presented with an argument against theism that appealed to the trustworthiness of the scientific method. It goes like this:

1. The scientific method relies on the constancy of the natural laws for its trustworthiness
2. In order for God to create, He must act in a way that breaks the constancy of the natural laws
3. Therefore, God creating and the trustworthiness of the scientific method are incompatible

The atheist believed that he had me pinned down because I believe that the scientific method is trustworthy. I explained to him the problem with his argument and why I reject his conclusion (I'll explain that later). I haven't really heard this argument presented much lately. But I did come across it again a couple days ago, not from an atheist but a fellow Christian.

Antitheism and Krauss' Wager

Lawrence Krauss- The Antitheist
Recently in a discussion with Justin Brierly (Unbelievable?) and Rodney Holder, Lawrence Krauss made an interesting statement (podcast: 58:01):

"You talk about this god of love and everything else. But somehow if you don't believe in him, you don't get any of the benefits, so you have to believe. And then if you do anything wrong, you're going to be judged for it. I don't want to be judged by god; that's the bottom line."

Earlier in the program, Krauss also described himself as an antitheist and made a distinction from being called an atheist. Taken in the context of the quote above this distinction and title makes a lot of sense. As apologists, it is not enough to address a worldview as a whole, we must look into the specific views of an individual to appeal to them on both an intellectual level and an emotional level. I have a few thoughts that I would like to draw out of this.

Has The "God Particle" Finally Been Discovered?

There has been tremendous excitement in the scientific community over the last week. Research being done at the Large Hadron Collider indicates that another fundamental particle has been detected- the Higgs Boson (a.k.a. "The God Particle"). If verified, this will be one more step to finding a unifying theory for all the quantum forces. You can see a summary of the announcement from Science Daily. and CNN.

For responses from those in the Christian community, see these:



2019 Update: Articles from particle physicist and Large Hadron Collider researcher Dr. Michael G. Strauss:

• Probing The God Particle
• Looking for (the) God (Particle) In All The Wrong Places
• The God Particle...and God

For more from Dr. Strauss, check out his blog, YouTube Channel, Book, and my favorite quotes from his book.

Responses from the original 2012 post: 

• Astrophysicist Jeff Zweerink from Reasons to Believe explains the Higgs Boson (Audio, Article #1 and Article #2)
• Philosopher William Lane Craig from Reasonable Faith responds to the announcement (Audio#1, Audio #2 and Article)
• Nuclear Physicist Jay Wile comments on the appropriateness of the name "God Particle" (Article)
• Philosopher Glenn Peoples examines the implications on God's existence (Article)
• Christian apologist J. Warner Wallace from Please Convince Me examines the discovery (Audio)
• Astrophysicist Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe explains the Higgs Boson in a four-part series from 2011 (Articles- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4) 
• Christian apologist Sandra Dimas blogs (Take Two) about the meaning of the discovery and includes several extra links to resources from Reasons to Believe (Article) 
• Christian apologist Alan Anderson examines the theistic implications (Article)

🤔The God Paradox: Debunking the 'Who Created God?' Challenge💥

The Question/Challenge

A fairly common question that I hear many atheists raise against any form of theism is "Who created God?" I've noticed that this question often comes around after a theist has presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Even though the KCA merely concludes that the universe had a cause, the atheist wishes to undermine the theist when they use other arguments (such as the moral argument or teleological argument) to identify the cause as God. The question is designed to show that even God has a cause, and His cause had a cause, which also had a cause, etc. This could go on forever, thus requiring an infinite regress of causes. If, this challenge holds up, then it is a powerful argument against God's existence. So it does warrant a close examination. I have a couple of observations that I wish to bring to light about this challenge.

Book Review: Creating Life In The Lab🧫

Introduction

Creating Life In The Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make A Case For The Creator is Dr. Fazale Rana's latest contribution to Christian apologetic literature. The goal of the book is to provide a case for God's existence from the controversial efforts of scientists to "play God" by creating life. He has written the book with the backdrop of Frankenstein to provide some cultural connection. The book has thirteen chapters plus an appendix that includes a short refresher on biochemistry. The book, though not officially, is divided into two parts: the first examining the quest to create artificial life and the second investigates scientists research behind the origin of life.

Chapter 1- Waking Up in Frankenstein's Dream

Dr. Rana begins his book by giving a little of his own history- what made him want to study biochemistry and what brought him to the point he is at now. He then begins setting the stage for the rest of the book. He explains what has happened regarding origin-of-life research. He starts at the Miller-Urey experiment and brings the reader to the present. He then discusses a bit about the main topic- scientists' attempts to create life in the lab. He explains the two different approaches commonly used. He acknowledges that historically such attempts have been seen as threats to Christianity, but he believe that the opposite is actually true- that the success of scientists will be empirical evidence that the creation of life requires an intelligent agent to accomplish.

Avoid Overstating Your Case

A while back I wrote a couple posts about the danger of overstating a conclusion and the importance of recognizing alternative explanations for evidence. I also blogged about the way in which science and scripture are interpreted (Nature vs. Scripture). Those posts each stand on their own; however, in this post I want to bring some of those concepts together and provide specific examples found in discussions between evolutionists and intelligent design proponents of overstating conclusions. Familiarity with the content of those posts will help you understand the content here.

We are going to look at  two sets of arguments provided by each side regarding the similar body plans of humans and the great apes. We will look at why the conclusions are valid, thus exposing the limits of the conclusions. When we know the limits of the conclusions, we are less likely to overstate our case.

Common Descent Compatibility
Let's look first at an argument on the evolutionary side:

1. Humans and the great apes have similar body plans
2. Common decent has the ability to explain similar body plans
3. Therefore common decent has the ability to explain the fact that human and the great apes have similar body plans

A Very Good Creation That Undermines Christianity

Introduction

If you've been following Faithful Thinkers for a while, you will know that I take a very strong stance regarding the age of the universe. For those who don't know, I take the old-earth creation view (OEC) (as opposed to the young-earth creation view [YEC} or theistic evolutionary view [TE]). I enjoy discussing and debating it as long as I'm not talking to zombies (please read that post as this post draws from the practices encouraged in it). This past week I've been actively discussing one particular interpretation of a certain passage of scripture. I decided to blog about it because I believe that I have identified a powerful argument that an atheist or other unbeliever can add to their arsenal of arguments against Christianity.

What Does "Very Good" Mean?

Our discussion began by my asking Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (AiG) on his Facebook page what he believed God meant in Genesis 1:31a ("God saw all that he had made, and it was very good"). Specifically, I asked about the phrase "very good". I asked if he believed that it meant a moral good (all the matter/energy that God created has moral value), a teleological/utilitarian good (as in the creation being very good to accomplish His goals), or both (the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Ham did not respond to me; however, another person did. According to Ham's view, this is a proclamation by God that creation was perfect at the end of creation day six as He is perfect. He believes there is no other legitimate way to interpret this passage. I was given an audio recording by Mr. Ham where he explains this view and his argument here: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2006/06/06/refuting-compromise-what-does-2/

Please listen to it as the rest of the post depends on the reader's familiarity with the content of the recording. It will also allow the reader to determine if I am arguing against a strawman.