I was hoping to get into the evidence regarding Dr. Ross's RTB Creation Model, but it seems we have another important topic we need to debate first.
Forum: Is it Science?
Title: Can science say anything about a Creator God?
Ross writes:
Since the birth of the scientific method, science has been defined as the pursuit of systematized knowledge and understanding about the way the universe, with its governing laws and all it contains, operates. Such a definition leaves the investigation open to consideration of the causal agent(s) that may be responsible for these operations. P. 18
Ross reports that new definitions of science have been published which specifically exclude any investigation into the why questions humans often ask. Here are some examples:
Science is an attempt to explain the natural world in terms of
natural processes, not supernatural ones. (italics in the original) - Eugenie Scott
Science assumes that natural processes have natural causes. - Lawrence Krauss
Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena. - AAAS
These redefinitions of science trouble Ross. He writes:
Acknowledging the blatant censorship inherent in such redefinitions of science, Scott has tried to soften her stance by saying it’s not that science denies God’s existence or his possible role as Creator. It’s just that science is incapable of ever detecting it. Because it is not possible to hold constant the actions of supernatural forces under laboratory conditions, Scott concludes that the possibility of a supernatural cause is outside of what science can tell us. She claims science and scientific testing must be limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions.
However, many scientists realize that Scott’s definition guts much, if not most, of the scientific endeavor. It eliminates historical and theoretical science disciplines including theoretical physics, astronomy, paleontology, geophysics, theoretical chemistry, and physical anthropology, as well as mathematics. P.19
Ross and I disagree with the view that science is incapable of detecting God and his role as creator. I know of two scientists who came to believe in God because of the Big Bang.
The first is Dr. Hugh Ross himself. He was an atheist until he was 15 years old. When he learned about the Big Bang, he realized there had to be a Big Banger. At first, he thought the creator was probably not interested in his creation (a deist view). When Ross was 17, he made a search of the holy books of the world’s major religions. He tested their statements scientifically. Ross thought that if the book was really from God, the book would get the science right. The first holy book he read said people lived on the surface of the Sun. Ross knew that wasn’t right. He put that book down and picked up another. Ultimately, Ross saw the Bible as accurate on scientific issues and he made the decision to believe in Jesus Christ. If not for the Big Bang, Ross would not have begun his search for the true God.
Another atheist who came to believe in God because of the Big Bang was Allan Sandage. In 1974, Sandage made the discovery the universe was going to expand forever. This meant the Cycle Theory, a popular view at the time that said the universe was eternal and was either in a state of expansion or contraction, was wrong. It also meant the Big Bang was a one-time event. Sandage knew nature does not do one-time events. In science, one-time events are known as miracles. This convinced Sandage that God created the universe, but like Hugh Ross, he did not know which God. After a two year long spiritual journey, Allan Sandage became a follower of Jesus Christ.
Even Richard Dawkins believes that science can tell us something on this important question. In an interview with Time magazine, Dawkins said:
The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.
Time magazine
Dawkins and Ross are on opposite sides regarding the existence of God, but they agree that science can say something important about the question.
I agree with Ross and Dawkins on this point. Science can say something significant about the existence of God. And the evidence should be followed wherever it leads.
What do you say?
™ Version 4.2