In today’s post-modern world we frequently hear people make the claim that belief in God is contrary to belief in Science. Even among renowned scientists, many are atheists. Some of these scientists use their status to try and spread their message that it is not reasonable, or rational, to believe in God. While this appeal to authority might be a logical fallacy, is it also a scientific fallacy?
It is easy to say “I see things, but I cannot see God, therefore there is no God” – but where did all of the things we see come from? Scientists, particularly those who have ruled out the possibility of a creator, struggle to answer this question. This is a tough question to answer, because any hypothesis that can be put forward can be refuted by a law of physics called “The Law of Conservation of Mass”. To summarize, this law states that mass, or matter, cannot be created or destroyed. Matter can change, but matter cannot be created, and it cannot be destroyed.
For example, a rock, over time, may crumble and turn into sand, but every bit if it is preserved and will still exist in one form or another. The same is true when water is boiled – it does not cease to exist, it becomes steam, and evaporates. A gigantic tree might grow from a tiny seed, but every molecule of that tree existed before the tree grew, just in different forms. If that tree were to burn, the matter would not cease to exist, but become smoke, and ash. The tree – or the rock – or the water in these examples did not come from nowhere – and they certainly did not create themselves. Neither did the earth, the sun, the moon, or the Milky Way galaxy – it is not scientifically possible for any of it to come into existence on its own.
If it is not possible for something to happen, then is it rational to believe that it did? How is the belief that all of this that we see came from nothing more enlightened and informed than the belief that it was placed there by a Creator?
It is important to understand that this issue goes beyond science. “I’ve never seen a Creator – so a Creator does not exist” is not a scientific concept. That standard is not applied in any other area of science. None of us have ever met a dinosaur, but based on the evidence that we have, we know that they existed. No one can see an atom, but we know thanks to scientific discovery that they exist. The same is true of the Creator of the universe, but some scientists are resistant to acknowledging a creator, regardless of the evidence presented. It is not a conclusion based on the scientific method, or observation, it is a conclusion that is the result of a bias. No human witnessed the beginning of the universe, so why is science so sure that the origin, whatever that might be, was definitely not a Creator?
Where did it all come from? How did everything come into existence? How does science answer this question without acknowledging a creator? Well, in short it doesn’t. Theories may come and go, and all kinds of ideas are thrown out in an attempt to explain it, but it is insurmountable, because there is no explanation for a creation without a Creator.