Skip to content

Science and Faith

Abstract. Biblical faith and science do not contradict each other. They are in fact the most reasonable convergence to cover a comprehensive understanding and interpretation of the universe and life by and for mankind, who is the sole witness of both the creation and the Creator. The convergence is meaningful in the ultimate sense. From the beginning of modern science and the origin of the controversy between science and faith to profound questions such as the beginning of the universe, the origin of life, Darwinism, and macroevolution, and fine-tuning of the universe for life, including the fine-structure constant α, it is a story of unnecessary contradictions. At the same time, although science assists faith, it is not a foundation of it. Science is the testimony of the old creation, and the Gospel is the testimony of the new creation, the former being the responsibility of the human soul while the latter is that of the human spirit.

1. The beginning of modern science

A brief history of science and faith: Modern science started in the 1600s in harmony with faith. Not only in harmony. European scientists’ monotheism and biblical faith in the Creator were both the foundation and motivation of modern science. Most early scientists were Christians who believed in the Bible as the Word of God. Of the minority who were not Christians in a spiritual sense, most at least held a Christian worldview.

This was no coincidence. For scientists like Isaac Newton, the deepest and strongest foundation and the motivation of their scientific philosophy is their belief in the Creator of the universe. The drive behind this is a simple yet profound concept:

Because the universe was created by one and only Creator, it ought to obey a unified and universal law.

To be discoverable, the law must also be stable, rational, and comprehensible or intelligible.

Therefore, the fact that the Creator revealed in the Bible is a God of an eternal Divine Order was also important. The biblical God has a consistent purpose and a systematic plan, persistently revealing Himself to men rationally and intelligently. (Compare it with the gods in Greek mythology and other cultures who are part of the universe rather than its external creator and are as fickle and corruptible as men.)

Discovering and formulating universal laws based on observations is what makes science different from technology and philosophy. Without such a belief in universal and stable laws, one would not have the concept of modern science in the first place and would be pursuing different things.

The history itself is evidence. Prior to modern science’s birth in Europe, the Egyptians and the Chinese had developed contemporarily superior technologies but not real science; the Greeks developed sophisticated philosophies but not real science either. The difference is that these cultures may have a curiosity about how things work and even ingenuity in making things work but did not have a clear concept of a universe being created to obey a universal law.

The story of Newton’s apple is a good illustration. Others see an apple falling to the ground from the apple tree and may never think of anything more than the phenomenon itself (which would be experience, but not technology or science); some may start to think about possible engineering applications based on the falling mechanism (which would be technology but not science); only Newton had the inspiration of gravity, which is science. And the inspiration, at least for Newton himself, had everything to do with his biblical belief.

This does not mean a scientist must believe in God in order to do science properly. Many scientists today are atheists or agnostics, or at least hold a naturalistic and materialistic worldview over the true biblical view. Surveying the leading scientists in the past hundred years would also confirm this proposition.

But that is only because once modern science was started, a way of thinking and a framework were established. Subsequently, one only needs the requisite intelligence, knowledge, and scientific methodology to do science.

It is evident that, at the beginning of modern science, an element of clear monotheistic belief was critical for escaping old patterns of thinking, forming a new framework of discovery, and pioneering into the deeper realm of the universe.

2. The origin of the controversy between science and faith

But the early European scientists – Newton was no exception – had a mechanistic view of the universe as an arranged pattern. When Newton saw the beauty of the solar system, he marveled that the order must be specifically arrayed by the divine Being.

That view, of course, was, and still is, the correct view in a general sense, but not in the specific way Newton and the other early European scientists thought.

Their view confused the specific manifestations of the physics law with the law itself. They did not understand that the universe was designed in a way that is fundamentally united at the foundation with a base law but allows an infinite number of specific manifestations. The variety of manifestations is possible, not in spite of, but because of, the unity at the base law.

That misunderstanding seeded a misguided and unnecessary philosophical struggle between science and faith in the subsequent centuries.

Specifically, as a result of and also as a response to the above narrow-view Newtonian misunderstanding, a misguided belief was formed among scientists who are either atheists or agnostics or in any way wish to challenge the Newtonian view of the universe.

That misguided belief is this: If mankind can find a scientific way to explain all patterns and manifestations of the universe, it would prove that God has no part in science or the universe.

That is essentially why Pierre Laplace, after finishing his great scientific work on Celestial Mechanics in 1799, proudly declared that he was able to explain the universe without the need for the ‘God hypothesis’, implying that Newton’s science relied upon a religious crutch, but his own didn’t, and therefore his science was superior.

Laplace’s view represents the worldview of mainstream science in the last 200 years. Scientists pride themselves on using the intrinsic attributes of creation to support an attempt to repudiate the Creator, not realizing the supreme irony and scandalous nature of this outrageously ungrateful position.

By all measures, the scientific developments and discoveries in the 18th and 19th centuries strongly resonated with the worldview represented by Laplace. During that period, even though Europe was still largely Christian, more and more scientists felt that science had elevated their secular worldview above the biblical worldview.

Underlying science is an unmistakable naturalistic and materialistic tone controlled by a scientific intelligentsia leading the ideological narratives. To the scientific intelligentsia, there is an ideological need to eliminate the idea of a Creator and snuff out any implication that the universe itself has a purposeful message to begin with. This need is so important that it can often become a guiding principle.

This is not to say that scientists all take an active anti-God role. Most of them simply follow the flow and find a subject to work on using an accepted scientific methodology. Unfortunately, the accepted scientific methodology has developed a near absolute presumption that the universe must be only and always explained by science, and when it clearly cannot be explained by science even by definition and by the nature of the problem, it still must be presumed to be explainable by the very existence of the universe itself.

The scientific universe therefore has evolved into a self-explanatory universe and thus become a religion that cannot be questioned, or you are considered a heretic and risk being excommunicated.

3. The tension between scientists and science itself

But a remarkable trend started in the early 20th century as science advanced further. The trend has continued since then and even intensified.

Facing the increasingly abundant and revealing observable data of the universe, scientists started to have difficulties harmonizing their naturalistic and materialistic worldview with scientific discoveries.

The contradiction has a common theme that can be summarized as:

Scientists want God to be out of science, but the universe itself always manages to reveal its Creator.

More specifically, while science is able to explain more and more phenomena of the universe, an unexpected discovery is emerging: not only does the universe obey a universal law, but also that it obeys a special universal law that narrows the path of the universe revealing a master Mind with a specific purpose, which is the creation of a universe with the design of life.

For example, today, we know that the celestial systems have almost unlimited patterns and forms. Physics, in principle, may explain every one of them. As beautiful as the solar system is, there is nothing so special from a mechanical viewpoint. But the trouble is that there is something special about the universe: the universe appears to have a beginning; not only that, but it has also followed a particular path from the very beginning, and that special path is to make life possible. Locally, there is also something special about the Solar system in which we live: it has a sun and an earth that happens to support life.

To many scientists who have a naturalist or materialistic worldview, this is puzzling. So much so that they have to invent a new philosophy called “anthropic principle” which tactically acknowledges this “peculiarity of life” (a singularity really) not only as a fact but also as a principle, but hides the deeper inconvenient question of purpose: What is behind this “peculiarity of life”? This intellectual cover-up is necessary because of the awfully troubling implication: such a singularly sharp peculiarity suggests “meaning,” and meaning suggests a Mind behind it.

But there’s something else that is even more troubling: the more we know about the sun and the earth, the narrower the odds of life appear to be in this universe. That is, even though the physics of the universe as a whole seems to be designed with a peculiar aim to produce life, life is paradoxically scarce in the universe. Astronomically scarce. There are simply too many special arrangements found in the constitution of the solar system particularly the sun and the earth that are not random but necessary for the existence of life. (This sharp uncomfortable point is what is behind the quest for extraterrestrial life, which is another story.)

In this process, the science that respects objective data (i.e., that hears the universe speaking) tends to choose the side of the Creator, albeit often reluctantly. As a result, we find the following repeating scene:

Scientists want God to be out of science, but science itself finds its way back to God.

The controversy between science and faith thus continues, accompanied by a tension between scientists and science itself. The controversy manifests itself in several important areas described below, especially the beginning of the universe and the origin of life.

4. The beginning of the universe

Albert Einstein was a great example of this controversy. Although often talked with philosophical terms that had a connotation of theism, Einstein was evidently motivated to get rid of God in science.

In Einstein’s time, scientists were faced with a dilemma. Because gravity is universal, the universe seems to suffer an inevitable gravitational collapse. If this implication seems far into the future, there is another serious implication about the universe’s past, and that implication has an immediate impact.

How did the universe get to its current state despite the gravitational pull? There must be an original ‘first force’ to spread the universe into its current state. That is, the universe must have a beginning.

To Einstein, the universe with a beginning wasn’t acceptable due to its obvious implication of a Creator. To solve the dilemma, he artificially introduced a cosmological constant and chose a value of it just so that it balances out the gravitation. This in theory resulted in a static universe to give peace to the atheistic minds of scientists.

Einstein pretended to ignore the fact that his fine-tuned value of the cosmological constant had no scientific basis but only a necessity to support his worldview.

But this was soon challenged, and collapsed when Edwin Hubble concluded in his observational cosmology studies that the universe is expanding.

Not static, but expanding.

This had enormous implications because an expanding universe not only suggests a beginning according to common sense and intuition but in fact requires such a beginning in the framework of cosmology as a unified theory of the universe. The necessity of a beginning had a scientific implication that time itself must have a beginning, as well as a theological implication because a beginning logically points to the One who started it.

Hubble’s observation forced physics to be changed to fit the data, as previous physics assumed time as a fundamental property extended from infinity to infinity. This also created enormous discomfort in ideology.

If the mere existence of universal gravity caused a conflict in the minds like Einstein, an observably expanding universe magnified that implication to a much greater degree.

The implication was so strong that, after seeing the universe through Hubble’s lenses himself, Einstein came out of the observatory and told the media, “I now see the necessity of a beginning.” The year was 1931.

Einstein’s ideological struggle was part of a unique theme of scientific development in the last 100 years. Scientists didn’t want God to be in science, but science itself always insisted on the opposite.

Further discoveries since Hubble led to the Big Bang Theory. Although the theory has not been completely proven and is likely to be modified with new discoveries, it captures a very important essence: the time itself, and hence the entire universe, has a beginning. To those who know the Word of God, this is not surprising, whether the actual science is accurate or not. It points to a universe that has an origin and, thus a result of creation.

It is important to note that the physics of time (as represented by the hypothesis of the Big Bang) wasn’t the result of scientists seeking a fingerprint of the Creator, but precisely the opposite. It is driven by an honest scientific requirement that the theory must fit the data. Many scientists find the idea of the universe having a beginning extremely ‘unexpected,’ ‘unnatural,’ and even ‘repugnant.’ They have only accepted that time has a beginning because there’s no other way to explain the observable data.

Stephen Hawking, one of the most prominent theoretical physicists known for his theories of black holes and the Big Bang Theory, did not like the idea that the universe had a beginning at all. Hawking himself devoted a good part of his life to finding an alternative explanation, not hesitant to delve into the realm of non-science.

5. The origin of life

Scientific research on the origin of life in the past 100 years has manifested a clear purpose of using scientific explanations of the origin of life to discredit the biblical view. The idea is that life came into being by itself, and therefore was not created as the Bible claims.

Such research, however, is not moving closer to the goal, but getting farther away. It is not that the research is moving backward, but that the goalpost is moving further and further away by the discoveries made by the research itself. This is happening at an accelerating speed that outpaces the research.

The more we understand life, the more we realize how naïve we have been hypothesizing about it using materialistic ideas.

5.1. Failure of the primordial soup

All researchers on the origin of life presume a ‘primordial soup’, the existence of which is hypothetical or even completely imaginary. But even if the hypothetical primordial soup existed, many things still simply could not have a scientific explanation.

For example, there was no explanation, not even a plausible scientific hypothesis, for the homochirality of molecules in life. All amino acids in life are ‘left-handed’ in their chiral configurations and cannot be exchanged for their right-handed counterparts. But molecules in nature outside of lives do not have this pure left-handedness at all. They are mixed, making it impossible to ‘spell the genetic words’ continuously. The ‘spelling’ would be interrupted by a right-handed molecule after every few letters, causing termination of life.

Beyond that, even if you were given molecules of homochirality to start with, there is no natural path from simple molecules such as sugars to polysaccharides. Today’s scientific labs with highly artificial and non-realistic conditions connived to produce life cannot even do that without cheating with unnatural human intervention in every intermediary step. (See Dr. James Tour’s criticism of the origin-of-life research. Dr. Tour is a prominent synthetic organic chemist at Rice University with over 700 publications in various scientific fields. Dr. Tour’s work on this subject is the finest example of looking at this matter honestly, objectively, and scientifically.)

And from polysaccharides to cells, there are even more and even harder hurdles.

But origin-of-life research will continue, with more and more innovative cheating and unnatural human intervention in intermediary steps from simple molecules to life.

Cheating takes two different forms. First, they bring what already exists in nature as the starting material for every next intermediary step. Second, they bring human wisdom learned from the existing life about the integrated design of life at every stage.

And when it happens, the mass will believe scientists have successfully created life without the ‘God hypothesis’. This has already happened. From IVF fertility to gene-edited fertility, every technological innovation has been interpreted by, or more precisely for, the masses to mean more than what it really is. “Scientists successfully created life!” – implying that if scientists can do it, there is no need for God, or at least that science does not need God. (It makes you wonder why no couple who gave birth to a baby naturally claimed that they created life by themselves. It’s probably because what people naturally do doesn’t carry the kind of aura that science does.)

Note the irony of using the Creator’s work, including the existing life or life-supporting materials and human intelligence, to repudiate the Creator. The level of ungratefulness and arrogance cannot be exaggerated.

Especially, human intelligence is a reflection of the intelligence of the Creator (man is created according to the image of God – Genesis 1:26-27).

But all this is not surprising. Ever since Satan injected his nature (sin) into the first man Adam, man has always been driven by a desire to covet the glory of God, as Satan himself always does.

This is not to say that all scientific research of this kind is evil. That is an entirely different matter. It is the motivation behind the origin-of-life studies and the kind of ideological conclusions people are led to draw and willing to draw that is the issue.

5.2. Advance of the systems biology

At the same time, the advancement of systems biology during the last 20 years has essentially proved that the reductionist view of biology is wrong, even though, as an interim step, it has provided many rough answers about life. More and more data show that life is not the result of a bottom-up piece-by-piece accumulation but a top-down holistic purpose-driven design.

Even the traditional correspondence between genotype and phenotype is increasingly proven to be inaccurate and inadequate.

A biological system not only appears as a system but in fact, works as a system according to an integrated design.

In the early stages, biology has had much success in isolating a function and identifying the corresponding component in the system that is responsible for the function. However, moving into more detailed molecular-level explanations of biosystems has made it increasingly evident that the reductionist method was only an approximation and, in many cases, not even a good approximation.

An increasing number of critical functions of a biosystem are found to be determined not by one molecule or even a group of molecules but by the systemic interactions of various molecular and cellular components and biological networks with each other and with their internal and external environments and conditions.

This means that a biological system must be there all at once with all necessary components properly integrated as a system at the same time with a predefined design, or else it means certain death of the specimen or a non-reproductive termination. It cannot jump to the new configuration of a different kind of life through evolution.

Even at a bacterial level, the system is far more complicated, advanced, and, most importantly, far more integrated than today’s most advanced semiconductor systems.

Such a complex system simply could not have evolved from bare atoms and molecules without a pre-purposed design. See more in the below section: The macroevolution fallacy.

5.3. Life as Information Systems

Information science has provided a different viewpoint on the origin of life. Looking at life as an information system instead of a chemical system has led to new theories and hypotheses.

All these theories and hypotheses ultimately need to answer the question of the origin of information, which essentially is a different way to describe the problem of the origin of life.

The effect of this is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the origin of information once again strongly suggests intelligence and design. The universe itself is an information system. And it is a testimony of its Creator. And further, the specific biological information systems in life may not be a natural result of the universe. Life as an information system allows room for considering an alternative: life is the result of a second creation based on a more advanced intelligent design on top of the first creation, the material universe. The alternative gives meaning to the universe and life but does not contradict science because it answers the questions that are at the ultimate end of science and that science cannot answer.

On the other hand, considering life as an information system invites oversimplification of life, masked by new terms and concepts without addressing the real issue.

Merely addressing life as information in the abstract is not sufficient. If the goal is to disprove the secondary creation of life, there must be a mechanism or pathway that explains the actual origin and the process. Everything must at least not violate the hard science of how atoms and molecules behave and work together rather than rely on an abstract information system modeling using vastly simplified computer simulations.

Nature has its own way of working. Even though we know quantum physics can explain the behavior of atoms and molecules in principle, actually computing exact atomic and molecular behavior is a different story. Any system beyond three atoms will require approximation to solve, even using modern computers. The complexity level arises exponentially when the number of atoms increases.

When such scientific explanations cannot be found, we once again face the choice of where to place our faith, the unknown universe or the Creator who has actually revealed Himself.

But here is a prediction: more and more computer software systems will be set up to ‘simulate’ the origin of life as biological information systems in order to demonstrate that such paths or mechanisms do exist. “Successes” will be reported without addressing the most fundamental issue.

These methods will make a play on abstract algorithms based on artificial rules without foundational reference to physical reality.

Not only that, but the artificial rules will also be the types that have a bias toward a particular direction to lead to a desired result. Not only will such artificial ‘simulations’ have no basis in real physics, but they will also pre-assume artificially biased probability distributions as premises rather than derive them as scientific conclusions on the first principles, effectively faking the role of intelligence design without calling it such.

From conjecturing the simplest self-referencing and self-replicating systems to biological cells to complex life forms and ultimately cross-species macroevolution, the actual complexity of life as a system will be reduced to software manipulations and computer games with increasing levels of creativity without discovering the truth, all under the name of biological information systems.

The right kind of simulation is an actual molecular dynamics (MD) simulation based on actual physics. Because ab initio quantum calculations are not possible at the genome or even at individual gene and protein levels, everything must be simplified. However, simplification based on scientific principles may still give us real insight, in contrast to computer games based on pure abstract and artificial rules.

But the following fact will not be told: a genome has billions of atoms, and a biosystem involves not only primary but secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures of DNA and proteins, while the best computers do not even strictly solve the detailed primary structure and behavior of a short nucleotide ab initio in various conditions (all such knowledge today is based on an approximation model combining x-ray and NMR structure studies and molecular dynamics simulations). And that’s not even bad, because it is far better than fake simulations based on artificial algorithms and rules (versus molecular dynamics simulation based on physics) which don’t even try to discover the actual structures and dynamics of the biological systems at all.

People will find it hard to tell any difference. In a digital age where the masses don’t tell the underlying difference between completely artificial cartoon animation and actual physics-based simulation, it will become harder and harder to elucidate truth using digital systems. Under the façade of ‘computer simulation’ (all the better if it has ‘artificial intelligence’), mankind will create virtual realities and virtual truth in it with virtual satisfaction. All will be fake.

But the truth stands: life indeed is an information system, but its systemic information has its origin in an independent intelligent design. Like the universe itself, life comes from the Mind, who not only gives life its origin but also meaning.

5.4. Inherent contradictions in the origin-of-life theories

The naturalistic and materialistic theories of the origin of life therefore have not only one but two inherent contradictions.

First, like in the theory of the beginning of the universe, even if the origin of life could be explained by natural science, it would only prove that the universe was created in a marvelous way so that life is possible, or that life is scientifically natural. Therefore, it would not achieve the atheistic agenda – either explicit or implicit – endorsed by many, even if it were scientifically successful.

Second, all signs indicate that, although the matter is made in such a particular way to support life, it is only a necessary but not a sufficient cause for life. Life does not seem to evolve naturally from matter, but is rather a higher-order design that is based on the lower-order design of the material universe. Life does not violate the laws of the original creation, the material universe, but goes further beyond the first one, and is a result of a purposeful second intervention through an advanced integration by the Creator.

This is clear in view of emerging systems biology, which is essentially founded on the idea of top-down holistic design. Systems biology has revealed that you can’t expect to build a life system simply piece by piece without the full foreknowledge of the holistic design purpose. Even the universe that is already fundamentally fine-tuned for life (see more below) is unable to do that automatically.

More and more scientists are realizing the limitations of reductionist biology and switching their research to systems biology, which reluctantly but inevitably points to intelligent design. Again, it comes to this not because scientists are pushing for intelligent design, but because the data requires better science to explain.

The only answer atheists have for all these insurmountable contradictions and difficulties is, ‘In nature we trust.’

If we can learn something from history, it can be predicted that the irony will happen again: few scientists will acknowledge the intelligent design behind life even when their research will be increasingly based on the idea of intelligent design. Most will choose to protect their ideological pride and career advancement. (“For they loved glory for men rather than glory from God.” John 12:43.)

Again, scientists will want God to be out of science, but the universe (life in this case) will reveal the work of its Creator, and correspondingly, science will also find its way back to God.

Only this time, the biologists may be less honest than physicists in acknowledging the inherent contradiction between their science and their ideology.

God may allow His enemy to blind people’s minds and harden their hearts to an even greater degree. This is how mankind approaches the end time.

6. The fallacy of Darwinism and macroevolution

Perhaps nothing in science has affected people’s faith in the biblical truth as much as Darwin’s theory of evolution did.

What is controversial is not microevolution but macroevolution, which is used to support the hypothesis that life evolved at the species level from simple lifeforms to complex ones, such as humans.

However, the advancement in molecular biology and molecular genetics have essentially discredited macroevolution and showed it to be a fallacy, even though few scientists have the honesty and courage to acknowledge it.

The truth: macroevolution is both mathematically and biologically impossible.

6.1. A general perspective

Darwin constructed his evolution hypothesis based on visible observations available then, before the discovery of molecular genetics. Because Darwin’s observations were limited to observable traits or characteristics (phenotype), there was much room for his imaginary hypotheses without having to confront deeper insights into genomic makeups, especially rigorous examinations by the hard science of how molecules and biosystems must behave or cannot behave.

That crude condition of lacking rigorous scientific data and insights gave Darwin’s hypothesis much room for acceptance. Darwin’s reasoning and conclusions were appealing and sufficient to persuade an age that had begun to take pride in challenging the biblical view. In fact, it created a prideful naturalism and materialism movement with a strong inertia that has lasted to this day and likely many more to come.

But the deeper the understanding of life is on the molecular basis and biosystems, the more implausible Darwin’s macroevolution becomes.

To begin with, let’s examine it from a commonsensical view of probabilities. This would give us a general idea of the scope and outer boundaries of the issues before we get into more specific analyses.

The number of possible permutations of genetic base pair sequences of the human genome surpasses all possible (random) combinations of alphabetical letters of the entire Britannica Encyclopedia or that of an entire modern computer operating system of 10 million lines of code. It cannot possibly be a result of a random process, not any more plausible than producing the whole Encyclopedia or the operating system by randomly typing from beginning to end.

For a book to make sense, the spelling of all the words must be correct or at least recognizable as words, and the structures of all sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and plots must be readable and make sense. But even that is only just a baseline because many can write something with perfect spelling and grammar but still overall garbage; some can even go beyond that to write something that has chapters and plots that are perfectly laid out in terms of logic, but has little meaning and purpose; a few can create something with clear meaning and purpose but not a masterpiece. Only rarely is a masterpiece produced that has a long-lasting life. This is the essence of the creativity of a creator.

Similarly, for a computer operating system to work, everything from the spelling of every code word, coding syntax, calls and functions, and multilayered logic structures to operational architecture must be correct. And again, that is just a baseline. Just because the computer program is bug-free doesn’t mean it will be meaningful and useful, and further, just because a computer program is meaningful and useful doesn’t mean it is a masterpiece. This also is the essence of the creativity of a creator.

Likewise, for macroevolution to work, any change in the genetic sequence required by a macroevolution step would need to have just the right change in the primary structure in order to ensure the right secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures of both the nucleic acids and proteins, such that the members of the species can still be alive and survive for reproducing the next generation. To evolve a biological species into a categorically different but more advanced species, the process will need to guarantee the survival at every step toward a new genome that simultaneously yields correct primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures as required by the continuation through the members of the species to which the mutation has occurred.

This therefore is the essence of creativity of a Creator.

The characteristic of a complex system is purposeful design, not random evolution.

Expecting such mutational macroevolution to succeed without active guidance by holistic design foresight is just as ridiculous as expecting someone randomly typing in the source code of an operating system of a modern computer to result in a still functional system, say nothing of an improved system.

6.2. Arguments for macroevolution

The arguments for macroevolution are that (1) it is an accumulative result of numerous micro-evolution steps, and (2) the natural selections guide the system to evolve.

That may sound like a reasonable explanation on the surface, but once one looks deeper into reality, it becomes evident that this kind of accumulation and selection are both mathematically impossible and biologically impossible.

Once put under closer scrutiny by both mathematics and molecular biology, macroevolution is exposed as the most implausible hypothesis any scientist has ever fashioned.

6.3. Macroevolution is mathematically impossible

The human genome has about 3 billion base pairs. To be conservative, let’s assume that only base pairs in protein-coding genes are relevant, and the rest can be ignored. This assumption is unlikely to hold with future discoveries of how the genome works, but it allows us to err on the conservative side.

That would give us roughly 1 billion base pairs in the human genome that are relevant to mutations. This estimate is based on the current estimate of 20,000 to 25,000 genes in the human genome, and about 50,000 base pairs on average in each gene.

But let’s cut the above estimate by ten times for no reason, only for the sake of being conservative. That would give us 100 million base pairs in the human genome that are relevant to mutations.

Because each base pair position has four possibilities (GC, CG, TA, AT), the possible permutations of 100 million base pairs are 4^100,000,000 (4 to the power of 100 million), or 10^60,000,000 (10 to the power of 60 million).

This is an unbelievably large number, far exceeding modern computers’ ability even to register it, let alone to compute it. To call it astronomical is a vast understatement because the current estimate of the total number of stars in the universe is about 10^24, the total number of small water drops (0.05 grams each) in Earth’s ocean is about 10^25, and the total number of sand grains on Earth is only about 10^18… You get the picture.

To put this into perspective, let’s call the entire pool of all possible genetic permutations a ‘genetic ocean’ (which really is an ocean of information), and compare that with the real ocean on Earth.

Now, let’s divide the ‘genetic ocean’ into 10^25 (10 to the power of 25) ‘sub oceans’ and compare this with the real ocean on Earth.

As said, the Earth’s ocean has about 10^25 small drops of water. Thus, each ‘sub ocean’ in the ‘genetic ocean’ corresponds to exactly one drop of water in the Earth’s ocean.

But our 10^25 ‘sub oceans’ would each still have 10^60,000,000/10^25 = 10^59,999,975 permutations, practically still infinite. That is, the ‘genetic ocean’ is really a super ocean of oceans of oceans of oceans……of oceans.

That is too vast to comprehend. The number of genetic permutations is infinitely large in any practical sense.

Let’s tighten up the numbers from there based on more specific scenarios and see how it goes.

It is said that the difference between the human genome and the chimpanzee genome is only about 1.2%. Such a ‘small’ difference is often quoted to convince people that chimpanzees are not very far from humans and thus that an evolutionary path is conceivable.

However, characterizing the difference using a small percentage number is misleading. The truth is that the 1.2% difference is really an infinitely large distance when measured by genetics. It is not what we think of as a small percentage based on our daily experience.

Recall the estimate above, the human genome subject to genetic mutations is 100 million base pairs under an extremely conservative estimate (and could be 1 billion base pairs or more).

1.2% of 100 million base pairs is still more than 1 million base pairs. This is a very conservative estimate because the often referenced ‘1.2% difference’ isn’t limited to the genetically most relevant 100 million base pairs at all, but rather a difference between the entire genomes, which each have billions of base pairs. For the sake of an argument, however, we approach it with this conservative assumption.

Therefore, from a chimpanzee to a human, we are still looking at 4^1,000,000 (4 to the power of 1 million) possibilities, or 10^600,000 (10 to the power of 600,000), which is still an unimaginable large number, practically still infinite.

Even without considering the biological hurdles (see further below for more details of the discussions), there simply isn’t enough time in this universe for macroevolution to happen.

Let’s assume a billion (10^9) years of evolution (which is another exaggeration because there probably isn’t that much time on Earth for life). With a species that has a total of 1 trillion (10^12) members and a reproduction cycle of once every day (note that these are already hugely exaggerated numbers for any advanced life), it would cumulatively generate mutations on the order of 10^24 over 1 billion years (10^12 x 10^9 x 365 = 3.65×10^23).

10^24 mutations may sound like a huge number, but is nothing when measured against the required 10^600,000, because it translates to the odds of just 1 out of 10^599,976, almost infinitely smaller than the probability of finding one particular drop of water, or even one particular water molecule for that matter, in the entire ocean on Earth.

What this means is that two species like chimpanzees and humans are genetically so distant from each other that a billion years of random mutations from an unreasonably large base of life units to supply mutations cannot even reach a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth……of the distance.

Counterarguments and answers:

Some may argue that the real process is not completely random with an even probability distribution, but rather nature plays favoritism by providing uneven probability distributions in the process of evolution.

But that introduces more hypotheses. Any uneven distribution will need a scientific basis. If the uneven distribution is a result of a complex system that is meant to support life, it would again beg the question of why the universe has such a uniquely complex system biased toward life.

Besides, even if one assumes much better (e.g., orders of magnitude better) probability for mutations that favor life than those that do not, it still cannot overcome the above almost infinitely large probability barrier.

What the above shows is this conclusion: the universe gives no mathematical chance for any macroevolution to happen.

The mathematical distances between two species may be further described more formally as follows:

A many-dimension Hilbert space can be used to define the genetic space of a genome. Each coordinate (point) in the Hilbert space defines one unique genetic permutation (with all base pairs in the genome specifically selected). There are nearly an infinite number of coordinate points in the generic space. The genetic distance between two points in the Hilbert space is measured by a Euclidean distance function using the genetic differences in all dimensions (dimensional distances) in the vector.

In this vast space, we would see ‘life islands’ on which all permutations each represent a form of life, and these life islands would be extremely far and between, separated from each other by vast spaces that do not support life at all.

To appreciate the genetic distance between two species, let’s again use the Earth’s ocean as an analogy to gain some perspective.

A drop of water in the ocean may be ridiculously tiny, but at least it is something that we can picture in our minds.

As said, the Earth’s ocean has about 10^25 small drops of water. Suppose we now make 1 million (10^6) special water drops that are different from the regular water drops but have the same size. The special water drops are different in that they are all ‘alive’, so to speak, and each drop can keep it to itself without disintegrating and dissolving into the rest of the water in the ocean.

We disperse the 1 million special water drops evenly in the ocean.

Now, the odds of finding a special water drop in the ocean would be 10^6/10^25 = 1/10^19, just 1 in 10 quintillion (1 in 10 million trillion). That is an exceedingly small probability, meaning that our 1 million special water drops would be so sparsely dispersed in the ocean that there is virtually no chance for one special drop to come near another.

When measured by their chance of meeting, the ‘distance’ between any two special water drops is very large.

At the same time, every special water drop has roughly 10^21 water molecules in it, making it a very large ‘island’ hosting molecules. (Note: because a drop of water is roughly 0.05 grams, and there are 6×10^23 water molecules in every 18 grams, one drop of water roughly has 10^21 water molecules.)

If that is impressive, let’s remember that our ‘genetic ocean’, when measured by genetic permutations, is far vaster than the Earth’s ocean measured by small water drops or even by water molecules.

In the ‘genetic ocean’, there can be an extremely large number of special ‘genetic islands’ (a cohort of genetic permutations) that each supports a type of life with many variations, yet at the same time extremely scarce in the ‘genetic ocean’.

So scarce that the ‘genetic islands’ are almost infinitely far away from each other, making it impossible to travel from one to another.

For example, if there are a quadrillion (10^15) ‘special genetic islands’ that each has a unique cohort of 10^25 genetic permutations that support a type of life, all disbursed into the ‘genetic ocean’, then the odds of finding a special genetic island in the genetic ocean would be 10^15/(10^60,000,000/10^25) = 1/10^59,999,960, meaning that each special genetic island (special cohort) would be surrounded by 10^59,999,960 regular cohorts of the same size that do not support life. The average distance between any two special genetic islands that support life would be practically infinite.

Therefore, again: the universe gives no mathematical chance for any macroevolution to happen.

6.4. Macroevolution is biologically impossible

However, the above is only mathematical. Some people claim that if you bring in biology, the distance will be reduced, and the odds will improve because natural selection will automatically have the wisdom and power to solve the problem.

Exactly the opposite is true.

Once you bring the biological reality into the picture, the odds for macroevolution become even worse, drastically. They worsen from mathematically impossible to both mathematically and biologically impossible.

This is because, from chimpanzee to human, the real issue is not only that it has worse than an astronomically large number of steps to go, but also that most of the mathematically possible steps are biologically unattainable because it would cause certain death of the member (specimen) which took those steps, or termination due to the specimen’s inability to reproduce.

Let us again use the above ‘genetic ocean’ and the’ live Islands’ as an illustration.

People who believe in natural selection mistakenly think that all species of life are like as if they are all on the same contiguous ‘genetic continent’, and every possible step on the path from one species to another species supports life, and that natural selection will somehow figure out the optimal pads to evolve from one species to another.

But that is exactly wrong. If each species is a ‘genetic Island’ then not only is the distance between any two ‘genetic Islands’ almost infinitely long, but the entire space between the two genetic Islands is mostly death or termination because those particular genetic permutations simply do not support life or reproduction.

Molecular biology matters, but only in a way that makes Darwin’s macroevolution even more implausible.

Not every possible permutation of base pairs would result in life. Life, any form of life, requires a special genome makeup with an integrated design to result in just the right kind of primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures, all necessary for the member of the species to be still alive and survive.

In fact, out of the almost infinite number of combinations of base pairs, only an extremely small portion of that may result in life. The odds of finding life in this infinite ‘ocean’ of genetic permutations are far smaller than finding one special drop of water in the Earth’s oceans.

Yet amazingly, the genetic material in the universe is designed in such a way to allow abundant ‘life islands’ (each a special cohort of genetic permutations that supports a unique type of life) to exist. Each ‘life island’ represents a species of life in the infinite ‘genetic ocean’.

The ‘life islands’ can be both extremely rare in the infinite genetic ocean, and extremely numerous at the same time. This may seem paradoxical but not in reality, given the almost infinitely large base number, because a very small portion of an almost infinitely large number can still be a very large number. This allows a vast number of species of life forms to exist. And even though each’ life island’ is extremely small compared to the infinite ‘genetic ocean’, it can have a very large number of genetic permutations within its own cohort, allowing numerous variations within the same species.

For example, out of the 10^60,000,000 total genetic possibilities, even if only one out of every 1 trillion (10^12) represents a life (and the rest of the trillion, namely 999,999,999,999 are all non-life or cannot exist as a life form), there still would be 10^60,000,000/10^12 = 10^59,999,988 different permutations that would permit a life, still practically infinite.

How marvelous the universe based on small odds but large numbers of possibilities is!

The result of this small-odds design is one that has serious implications:

(1) the distance between one species of life and another is practically infinite when measured by real genetics;

(2) the vast spaces between different species are mostly death or termination and cannot provide a continuing path through mutations.

This is the picture of truth painted by both mathematics and science combined. People generally miss this picture because mathematicians don’t think about it biologically, biologists don’t grasp it mathematically, and we all tend to take creation’s marvel for granted.

This is exactly how life was designed and created (“each according to its kind,” Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25).

But people fancy that life can move from one’ genetic island’ to another with imaginary cumulative random mutations! It is beyond fantasy, like trying to get from point A to point B but not only facing almost an infinite number of steps from A to B but also getting killed by moving away from the normal position by just a few steps.

The believers of macroevolution find it surprising and disappointing that nature does not have (1) any fossil records of the pre-Cambrian source of life (in fact, more and more fossil records support a clean and abrupt Cambrian explosion, the Big Bang of life); (2) fossil records of intermediaries between any major species (i.e., the missing links).

But from a molecular biology viewpoint, it is expected. It would be surprising if it were otherwise.

6.5. The genetic diversity within the same species has nothing to do with evolution

A counterargument can be raised in defense of macroevolution: if a 1.2% difference between chimpanzees and humans is almost an infinite distance, how do you explain the 0.1% genome diversity in human races? It is true that 0.1% is much smaller than 1.2%, but following the same calculations, it would seem that even a 0.1% difference is an impossible distance to traverse, yet the diversity is a fact.

The answer to the above argument is simple: the genetic diversity within the same species isn’t achieved by mutation, but rather through a child’s variable inheritance of randomly mixed half-chromosome genetic information from the two parents. It is well-known in genetics that a rather diverse offspring can result from a pair of common ancestors, even if there is no mutation.

Following the above analogy of the ‘genetic ocean’ and ‘genetic islands’, even though island-to-island (species-to-species) distance is almost infinite, and each ‘island’ is tinier than a drop of water in the ocean compared to the ‘genetic ocean’, the number of possibilities within the same island (the same species) is still large.

Put another way, variable inheritance of genes allows ‘traveling’ within the same ‘island’ (the particular cohort of genetic permutations for the species) to result in diversity within the same species.

But in contrast, any step outside the ‘island’ toward a different ‘island’ (mutating from one species to another) is likely to enter into a death zone with each step away, and absolutely guaranteed to be terminated well before reaching the other island, both due to the deadliness of the path and the vast distance between any two ‘life islands’.

The difference is not only in the distance but also in the biological nature of the intermediate positions. ‘Migration’ within the same ‘island’ benefits from both the following conditions: (1) genetically guided direct shortcuts from a ‘point a’ to ‘point b’ (in contrast with random mutations) are available through variable inheritance of mixed parental genes, and (2) there are always a life-path exists on which every step supports a survivable life.

None of the above two necessary conditions is true going from one ‘island’ to another.

There seems to be a reason more fundamental than what’s usually suspected for why cross-species reproduction is not possible, at least not survivable for passing down genes to the next generation.

6.6. Natural selection for macroevolution is irrational faith

Regardless of how much mathematical and biological evidence is presented, however, firm believers of Darwinism would not change their minds. They have anchored their faith in nature.

The only answer atheists have for all these insurmountable contradictions and difficulties is, ‘In nature we trust.’ That is, nature is their god.

But with the advancement of science itself, that faith is appearing more and more irrational.

Darwinism ultimately resorts to a blind trust in the so-called ‘natural selection’, as if nature itself had supreme wisdom.

But other than obeying the natural laws and mathematics, nature has no wisdom in itself. The ‘wisdom’ of natural selection therefore is restricted by the laws of nature.

For nature to make its “wise” selections at all, a basic condition must be met: those mutation occurrences must be available in the first place for nature to select from. This requires, at minimum, the mutated member to be alive and to survive long enough to perform the next-generation reproduction. And this must repeat reliably for every mutation step for an incredibly large number of steps.

But as illustrated above, this simply cannot possibly happen due to both a mathematical impossibility (too many possibilities and too little time) and biological impossibility (death, lack of survivability, termination of reproduction).

It is important to note that, although natural selection may have some inherent ‘wisdom’, the occurrence of the mutations as a process does not. This is also another way to understand why in-species inheritance is fundamentally different from mutations. Inheritance has intrinsic ‘wisdom’, which is based on the very process of a successful living reproduction within the species (being confined within a living species and remaining alive is in itself a status of ‘wisdom’), while mutation, by definition, is a random deviation from that process.

Only the ‘selection’ part of natural selection may have ‘wisdom’, but the selection must have a supply of usable mutations to have any effect, and the mutation, by definition, is random and has no ‘wisdom’ in it.

In addition to the normal inheritance of genes, mutations do frequently happen with surviving members of the species. But these mutations are different. They are within the same species, that is, within the same ‘island’. If a random mutation ever moves away from the ‘island’, it will soon be terminated. Such termination is not readily observable, because it would have caused the termination of the organism at the cell stage.

In fact, most observable mutations cause diseases because they are moving away from the healthy zone, and only haven’t got far enough to cause death.

The fact that no cross-species mutation has ever been observed in nature is evidence.

Put yet another way, in the context of macroevolution, selection wisdom has no effect because nature does not provide sufficient inputs for making the selections a successful path.

And the deficiency is not measured by a few times or even just a few orders of magnitude, but nearly infinite times. Darwin’s macroevolution is the most implausible hypothesis any scientist has ever fashioned.

7. Fine-tuning of the universe for life

All scientific studies of ‘the origin of life’ take the universe as it is for granted, take fundamental physical properties of matter for granted, and take the laws of physics, chemistry, and biochemistry for granted.

In other words, they take the intrinsic attributes of the creation to support an attempt to repudiate the Creator and ignore the fact that the universe itself is fine-tuned for life to begin with.

But even if that ungrateful attitude could be taken as a legitimate basis, the evidence is mounting that the mere existence of atoms does not naturally evolve into life—not even the most basic life form, much less complex and advanced life.

A post-creation intervention that positively formed life on Earth has increasingly become a far more reasonable interpretation.

For people who know the biblical truth, however, the result is unsurprising but rather expected. Although God did create the heavens and Earth first (Genesis 1:1), including the dust from which man was subsequently formed, and the nature of the ‘dust’ does have the intrinsic properties that are necessary to form life, the first man Adam did not naturally grow out of the dust but was positively formed by divine intervention (Genesis 2:7).

Still, whether life is a natural result of the universe or a result of a second divine intervention, the fact that the universe supports life, which is made of the same material as the nonlife universe itself and obeys the same laws, is mind-boggling. If you don’t feel that way, it is only because you have taken it for granted and have not considered this matter on a first-principles basis.

Even the fundamental forces in the universe are fine-tuned for the existence of life.

It is also important to note that the fine-tuning of the universe isn’t merely about the ratios of the fundamental forces but goes to the root of why these fundamental forces exist at all.

Of course, ‘fundamental forces’ are only human ways of describing this universe. But regardless of what we call them and how we describe them, the distinct effects of these fundamental forces are real. They are not necessary to make this universe real and self-consistent in an existential sense (which itself is already such a marvel), but absolutely necessary to make the universe just so that the elements, especially carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, among a great number of other things, are just so that the life is possible.

Beyond the fundamental physics, the natural environment in which humans exist is clearly fine-tuned for life, viewed at every level and every angle, especially the unique condition of the Earth.

8. Fine-structure constant α

One of the most intriguing factors of a fine-tuned universe is a constant called fine-structure constant α (the alpha constant).

Fundamentally, the alpha constant is a unitless number (or dimension 1). It is the ‘coupling constant’ measuring the strength of the electromagnetic force that governs how electrically charged elementary particles (e.g., electron, muon) and light (photons) interact.

This interactive strength balances multiple aspects of the universe and precisely determines its structure.

The latest precise measurement of the constant is 1/137.035999206 (Physicists Nail Down the ‘Magic Number’ That Shapes the Universe).

It is not a whole number or an exact fraction of a whole number. The number of trailing digits is only limited by the precision level of scientific measurements. Mathematically, it is a random one out of an infinite number of possibilities.

A curious mind would naturally ask, why this strange number?

What should be even more puzzling is the fact that quantum theory itself would objectively work in a self-consistent way regardless of what α constant is. In other words, in theory, α constant can be of any value, and the universe would still exist without self-contradiction (humanly speaking, anyway), but our actual universe is just such a selection out of an infinite number of possibilities.

It turns out that the alpha constant has to be just right to give us the exact universe in which we are.

If it were just a tiny bit smaller, say 1/138 instead of 1/137, only the lightest elements, such as hydrogen and helium, would be formed at the beginning of the universe and the star formation, and our universe would not have elements such as carbon which are essential for life.

But if it were just a tiny bit greater, no chemical bond between elements would be possible because the electrons would be too tightly bound to the nucleus of an atom and not spread out enough to connect with the electrons of other atoms.

The quantum theory combined with relativity accounts for the details or ‘fine structure’ of the atoms, most directly in the atomic structure of hydrogen but also all other elements.

The structural effect goes even finer than that. Even if the alpha constant is already within a precise range to allow the universe to make all the elements as it has today, and further to even allow chemical bonds between elements, it would still need to be more precise in order to give the elements that behave just the way they do in the present universe.

But why? Why this particular value, out of an infinite number of choices?

Everything is precisely designed to make life possible. The multitude of elements must behave in a way that allows life to exist.

Especially, the precise value of the alpha constant is necessary for carbon atoms to form long-chain chemical bonds of macromolecules, which is of central and foundational importance to any form of life. You might say if it is not carbon, then it will be some other element. But with just a slight change of the alpha constant, no element in the universe would be able to form long-chain chemical bonds of macromolecules. These chemical bonds are reality not imaginary.

In other words, if the alpha constant had been a slightly different value, the universe would still exist, but you and I would not.

9. Who do you worship, creation or Creator?

But some philosophically minded people would mock the very notion of inquiring about the uniqueness of the universe and call it ‘meaningless’. They thus reason: the very fact that man exists and asks this question is proof of a self-evident and self-proving universe, and asking ‘why’, therefore, has no meaning.

Many push this line of thinking even further by asking a rhetorical question that is meant to be a checkmate: if God created this universe, then who created God?

On the basis of mere human reasoning, these arguments are not illogical (see further below). But the essence of this reasoning is making the universe the equivalence of a God of ‘I AM I AM’ (Exodus 3-14, the One who is, always has been, and always will be, requiring no origin other than Himself), thus the highest form of idol worshiping, because it corrupts in the mind of man the image of God into that of the creation (Romans 1:20-23).

It is, therefore, not a matter of science or logic at this level of thinking. It is beyond all that. It is a matter of spiritual and moral choice which has to do with a person’s being (see further below).

Is it not strange that facing the choices between assuming a self-existing universe and acknowledging a self-existing God, many would zealously choose the former, with pride and conviction?

Note that the above two choices are logically equivalent but spiritually and morally contrasting, like day and night or life and death.

10. The multiverse imagination

Atheists think they have an answer to this marvelous fine-tuning. Their answer is the existence of an infinite number of universes, the so-called multiverse.

But any speculation of a multiverse is no longer science by definition, because it is not subject to observation, let alone experimentation, and is thus unfalsifiable, squarely falling in the realm of “not even wrong” defined by the famous physicist Wolfgang Pauli (unfalsifiability, i.e., no possibility of being proven wrong, and certainly no possibility of being proven correct either, or complete unverifiability). It, therefore, cannot even be called a theory or hypothesis, but only an imagination.

Multiverse is not only nonscientific and imaginary, but given the motivation behind its origin and promotion, it is really a religion enticed by the enemy of God in the vain human minds to find an excuse to reject God.

‘Rejecting God’ may make an atheist feel powerful, but that is just a trick played by Satan, because, in reality, the enemy of God is achieving just the opposite, which is to make man’s mind and heart so hostile to God that God could not accept man according to God’s righteous purpose for man.

11. Science assists faith but is not a foundation of it

But at the same time, one should never take science as the foundation of faith.

Be careful not to fall into the fallacy of using science to prove God. God has carefully designed the human mind so that knowledge of God is not an inevitable result of mere human reasoning.

God does this with a purpose. God wants the relationship between God and man to be by choice, not by reasoning. Although the choice will have a reasoning part, it is primarily a spiritual and moral matter that is based on divine revelation and human reaction to the revelation. This is a first-principles design by God, not an accidental happenstance.

Therefore, man is made with the intrinsic capability to either believe or not believe.

If man is willing, he can always find an excuse satisfactory to his natural mind not to believe in God. The imaginary multiverse is the latest example.

Without such natural ability of unbelieving, there would be no contrast with faith, and faith would lose value, and there would be no moral basis for God to judge unbelieving.

Rather, the true knowledge of God is, by God’s design, a result of men’s acceptance of the Word of God, the Word having become flesh, being interpreted by the Holy Spirit, being received by the human spirit, and obeyed by the human soul. All this is designed by God to bring to man redemption from the fallen man, the first Adam, and glorification in Christ, the last Adam.

Therefore, believing in the existence of God is only a necessary beginning of faith. Believing God, in itself, does not save man. Man may sincerely believe in the existence of God, but that belief may be just a reflection of his conscience being honest. The reflection itself does not save him because it does not change his nature. Sin is the problem, but merely believing God exists does not solve that problem. Even demons believe God, but tremble (James 2:19).

But Noah believed in God and was saved. Not only did he believe in the existence of God, but he also believed in what God had warned him and what God had promised, and he further obeyed God’s command (his building, entering, and coming out of the Ark).

12. Science is the testimony of the old creation, and the Gospel is the testimony of the new creation

In the Old Testament, the Psalmist says, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims His ways” (Psalm 19:1).

We read it and exclaim, what a great psalm it is!

It certainly is. But that was only the testimony of the old creation, the primary theme of the Old Testament.

In the New Testament, God has much more to say. God through a new creation in the Son of God, from whom the new creation is generated.

The testimony of the old creation does not bring man truly to God but only shows, by contrast, fallen man’s terrible and pitiful condition in sin.

“…for from the world’s creation the invisible things of God are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both His eternal power and divinity, so as to render them inexcusable. Because, knowing God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but fell into folly in their thoughts, and their heart without understanding was darkened: professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible…”

Romans 1:20-23.

Man rejects the testimony of the old creation (the universe) by either ignoring or abusing it. They ignore it by giving no significance to its marvel as if it were all “natural” and could be taken for granted. They abuse it by making a god out of the creation itself.

Modern materialism is a religion in its nature. It elevates an imaginary multiverse to the position of ‘I AM I AM’ (the self-existent One who is from eternity to eternity). Its believers make a deliberate choice. It may sound sophisticated, but it is not different from the idol worship of man and of birds, quadrupeds, and reptiles in ancient times.

But God doesn’t intend for the testimony of the old creation to be the end of man’s story. God’s plan is for the testimony of the new creation (the new man) in Christ to be the end result. It is salvation, the true Gospel.

“If any one is in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new.”

2 Corinthians 5:17.

“Behold, I make all things new”

Revelation 21:5.

13. Spirit and soul

Man is spirit, soul, and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23). The spirit is intuition, conscience, and fellowship (communing with God and with others in God—1 John 1:3), while the soul is mind, will, and emotion.

Note that understanding of science only plays a role in the human mind, which is part of the soul but not of the spirit. Science is only a part of the soul’s knowledge of God because, in addition to the mind, the soul also has a will and emotion, each of which has its own knowledge and a connection with God.

But the true knowledge of God must originate from the spirit.

A soul that understands God is a happy soul, but he also knows that it is only by God’s grace that the soul can even know God. It is the life-giving Spirit that makes it possible for us to believe and know God through Christ.

“The last Adam (Christ) became a life-giving spirit.” – 1 Corinthians 15:45.

Believing that God exists is natural to one who is willing (and likewise, not believing is also natural for one who is unwilling). But believing how God saves the world is a different matter. Believing that God saves the world by humbling Himself, becoming a man, bearing all the fault and shame of the sin of the world, willingly dying on the cross, and rising from the dead, is not a natural thought that can arise from the mind of the natural man, but a result of a supernatural revelation. It is a miracle by definition, and the fact that one can believe that, is also a miracle.

It is all by the grace of God in our Savior Jesus Christ, who has given himself away for us in order to redeem us and sanctify us onto the glory of God.

And that is the only thing we can ultimately rely upon in faith.

14. Science matters

That being the truth, it is nonetheless helpful and even important for us to understand God’s design of this physical universe because it is part of God’s creation, and it has to do with us today.

For seekers and even doubting seekers, Dr. James Tour and Dr. Stephen Meyer’s work, including their recent conversation on the origin of life, is a good place to start.

It’s a beautiful testimony for these men of God and men of science to share their wonderful knowledge in an easily accessible way.

15. The public perception

At the same time, the general public seems to be entirely oblivious to the struggle and contradictions between science and its implicit ideologies. The naturalistic and materialistic worldview has taken its root with the mainstream public. Science is taught in schools, including colleges, with an absolute viewpoint of the universe which is atheistic.

The materialistic ideology dominates scientific education and much of scientific research.

In the past, scientists at least generally felt a strong obligation to respect observable facts despite their desire to bend things to support their own ideologies. To what extent this tradition can still be kept is becoming increasingly questionable. There are many indications of this scientific tradition being gradually fading.

When a particular worldview becomes completely and exclusively dominant, what is at stake is no longer merely ideology itself but also one’s career. As said, most scientists are not activists advocating an atheistic and materialistic ideology (even if they do hold that worldview) but will choose what benefits their career.

The total professionalization of scientific research is finally showing its detrimental side.

However, for anyone who is honest and open-minded, it should not be too difficult to see that modern science has consistently, although reluctantly and unintentionally, revealed the infinite divine intelligence behind the design of the whole universe.

From quantum physics to DNA, proteins, and cells, to the structure of the Earth and the solar system, and to astrophysics, the evidence of a fine-tuned universe with a purposeful and intelligent design for life is mounting and is amazing.

It is only people’s hardened atheistic hearts that convince them otherwise, causing them to miss the signal and not see the pattern. And the fact that people’s mind is often provoked by misconceptions of biblical teachings makes the blinder even thicker.

On the one hand, science as a profession has become more and more just like any other career job by which people make a living, but on the other hand, science is still used as a highly elevated authority, as a cover or pretense, to promote atheism and materialism agendas.

Again, it is not that most scientists actively insist upon a certain ideology and ignore the real implications of science itself. Most scientists do not really think about these matters seriously. They simply accept whatever that’s in the mainstream narrative, not realizing they’re paying a high price for their career. That’s an implicit ‘tax’ they pay for the modern-day’s fake god, scientism.

16. A call of faith

The primary intended audience of this article is Christians who share the Gospel with others, namely evangelists in all capacities. But that should include all believers, should it not? Besides, the article is open to all kinds of readers, unbelievers, skeptics, or seekers.

Many Christians have careers in science and technology or related fields or at least have a good knowledge of science. Surprisingly, few of them have a good understanding of the relationship between science and faith. People tend to silently acquiesce to whatever is in the mainstream narrative, leave it in a corner and don’t think about it too much until challenged (often by unbelievers). And when challenged, they usually don’t have an adequate answer.

Let us think independently. Christians in science especially, need to renegotiate their ‘work contract’ with this world. If an open ‘protestant’ position is too risky, at least try to be consciously honest and refuse to be a passive part of the perpetuation of a lie. Refuse to be such a willing victim of paying the implicit ‘tax’ to the modern-day’s fake god, scientism based on pseudoscience.

The kings of the earth tax over people’s income, but the ‘the Prince of the world’ (the Devil) taxes over people’s souls and spirits. Wake up, see through the enemy’s scheme, and join the true liberal revolution (liberation).

But we also acknowledge that science is usually not the largest obstacle on a person’s journey to faith. Even for those who find this question crucial, the ultimate answer cannot be merely academic. It must be a life that receives the testimony and revelation of the Holy Spirit in Christ.

Share