The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel [39]
“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