While it is certainly true that science does not, and cannot, definitively prove the existence of God, it is equally the case that it does not, and cannot, disprove his existence, either - as Richard Dawkins and various other atheistic scientists have infamously claimed. Exciting discoveries in various branches of science over recent decades – including that of physics, chemistry and biology – have provided stronger evidence of a supernatural Creator.

There are indeed many eminent scientists who have faith in God. One such – a scientist-friend of one of our Prophecy Today team – decided, one day, to sit down and proved that God was not real, then have his morning coffee and get on with his work! He failed! Professor Roy Peacock’s life was changed forever after a sudden encounter with the living God, and he went on to become a well established scientist and advisor to many government bodies and industrial companies, later holding a Chair in Aerospace Sciences at the University of Pisa.

Justin Brierly, former editor of Premier Christianity, notes in his recent book The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God, many scientists who have become convinced of a God, some coming to faith in the God of the Bible.

Now we can also see these ideas being published in secular outlets. A fascinating article published in The Daily Mail online¹ last weekend - albeit, from a theistic evolutionary perspective - shared the findings of one of a growing number of scientists whose life-long pursuit of empirical truth in the lab has led them to 'believe in God as the author of creation.'

Belief in an omnipotent creator

The Daily Mail particularly focuses on Dr Denis Alexander, a biomedical researcher and past chair of molecular immunology at the UK-based Babraham Institute in Cambridge. Dr Alexander spoke of how his decades in immunology has only increased his belief in an omnipotent creator.

“'I see the sheer complexity of the immune system as truly staggering,' Dr Alexander explained. 'For sure, as an evolutionary biologist, I see that complexity as the outcome of millions of years of evolution,' the scientist clarified. 'But at the same time the finely-tuned immune system reflects the intelligibility of the universe we inhabit.'

He found examples, across disciplines, of fellow researchers whose rational exploration of the laws undergirding our universe brought them closer to God.

'The fact that we have a system that can, in principle, defend ourselves against pretty much any invader that we might encounter during life on this planet,' he said, 'is remarkable. It looks like a rational universe with a rational Mind behind it.'

The newspaper highlights Dr Alexander’s book, a collection of essays co-edited by him, and written by scientists who have rejected their former atheistic outlook, ultimately finding Dawkins' critiques of religion lacking.² As the Mail describes, “He found examples, across disciplines, of fellow researchers whose rational exploration of the laws undergirding our universe brought them closer to God. But two emerging scientific discoveries stood out to him as the most compelling.”

The universe's physical constants

The article goes on to highlight these two compelling scientific discoveries:

---------------

"Beginning in the late 1970s, cosmologists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees became increasingly aware of a disquieting fact. The statistical chances that the universe's so-called 'physical constants' would be exactly what they are is astonishingly low. In other words, our universe is uncannily well-suited to creating and fostering life.

... we have no 'direct evidence for there being a multiverse

Physicists were left with two options to resolve this mathematical case for a created universe, as Carr put it: 'If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse.' In other words, it would require an infinitude of other random universes, with their own random 'physical constants,' for our own to be attributable to happenstance.

Astrobiologist Dr Caleb Scharf at NASA Ames, and many others who study space, call this conundrum over all these unlikely 'cosmic coincidences,' the phenomenon of 'fine tuning' or the 'anthropic principle.'

But given that, as Dr Scharf admits in his book 'The Copernicus Complex', we have no 'direct evidence for there being a multiverse,' Dr Alexander said he's happier to argue in favour of the former option.

'Whether or not we understand some aspect of that existence at the scientific level is really irrelevant to our belief in God,' he said. 'But when we do understand it scientifically, this just increases our awe at the amazing way that everything is put together in this intelligible universe,' Dr Alexander opined, 'in which God is the Author.'

'Convergence' in evolution

'Just as there is a fine-tuning of the physical constants that render the existence of this anthropic universe possible,' according to Dr Alexander, 'so in the past few decades it has become apparent that there is also a biological fine-tuning.'

... in the past few decades it has become apparent that there is also a biological fine-tuning.

Biologists and other academics, including Cambridge palaeontologist Dr Simon Conway Morris, have called this 'evolutionary convergence' — or the phenomena of different species, worlds apart, evolving along parallel trajectories.

'Eyes have evolved more than twenty times independently,' Dr Alexander noted.

Camera eyes, for example, evolved in both humans and octopus species despite an evolutionary path that split more than 550 million years ago, from a share ancestor whose only vision was a simple 'pigment spot ocelli.' Similarly, compound eyes, like those of many insects, evolved independently at least four times.

'Evolution is not a chance process, it is channelled along certain paths,' he said. 'The same bit of anatomy or the same biochemical pathway keep evolving in independent evolutionary lineages.'

'All this is highly consistent with God as the Author who has intentions and purposes for the whole drama of life,' Dr Alexander noted, emphasizing that the phrase 'consistent with' is not that same as saying 'proof of.'

Far from evolution being random and inherently directionless, perhaps it speaks to a deeply ordered world

Dr Morris similarly draws a clear line between 'intelligent design' theories and what is meant by 'evolutionary congruence.' 'Far from evolution being random and inherently directionless, perhaps it speaks to a deeply ordered world,' he said. 'How is it,' he asked, 'that our world is so ordered that we can understand it?'

-------------------

Not all readers will be prepared to accept the evolutionary stance taken in the 'Convergence' theory adopted above - preferring to stick to a more litereal interpreation of Genesis Chapter 1. Not all of us, either, have the scientific background needed to defend our faith from those who reject God due to the outdated belief that science has disproved God. But while there are excellent Christian resources in book and web format to share with those who question this, it is also helpful to know that we can point to articles in secular publications like this one in The Daily Mail.

Read the full article here

Endnotes
1. The article was written by Matthew Phelan and published on 8th Sept 2024.
2. Coming to Faith Through Dawkins: 12 Essays on the Pathway from New Atheism to Christianity.