We are really full of ourselves aren’t we!  Our arrogance knows no bounds.

We are really full of ourselves aren’t we!  Our arrogance knows no bounds.  Recently, while attending a conference on the west coast, I was thoroughly engrossed in a panel discussion on the unknowns and knowledge gaps associated with the origins of life.  Unfortunately the discussion came to a premature and abrupt end when one of the participants declared that it was just a matter of time before science would give us all the definitive answers.  In his opinion, no further discussion was warranted.  We should simply wait for the scientific proofs to pour in.   Oh really?  Now make no mistake, I love science and there is no question that scientific breakthroughs down through the ages have benefited mankind beyond measure.  But does science have all the answers?  And will it have all the answers tomorrow?  Science will continue to pave the way in improving the condition of mankind and in managing the delicate ecosystems in which we live, but it will never represent our only source of knowledge.

It is important to remember that all science is probability based.  The experimental method is based on interpretations of experimental results and conclusions which are a percentage of 100% certainty.  This is referred to as a P-value or probability of accepting a test statistic.  Experimentation can get very close to 100% certainty, but will never actually reach it.  For this reason scientists always refer to their interpretive conclusions with caveats such as “in all likelihood” or “in all probability” or “in most cases”.

The pivotal difference between science and faith is that science is based on observation of natural phenomena that is probability centered, while faith is evidential centered and based on acceptance of that which is unseen and un-testable.  Recently however, theoretical physicists have been pushing the limits of science by postulating theories or causes which are not directly observable or testable.  One notable example is Stephen Hawking’s reference to “Spontaneous Creation” as the cause for the universe and all life within it.  Dr. Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow are releasing a book this month entitled The Grand Design, which addresses three related questions:  (1) Why is there something instead of nothing, (2) Why do we exist, and (3) Why does this particular set of laws govern our universe and not some other set.  In a June 2010 interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, Hawking stated that his greatest desire was to “know why the universe exists, and why there is something rather than nothing”.  Hawking has now concluded that a God is not the cause of the universe.  Instead, he concludes that “Spontaneous Creation” is the reason why there is something rather than nothing.  Hawking purports that there may be billions of universes, and given this vast potential there must be others with similar natural laws conducive for the formation and support of life forms – just by chance alone.

I have 2 major problems with this theoretical based atheistic conclusion.  First, the fact that there may be other universes with properties conducive for life, does not address how any or all of them came to be, nor does it explain how complex organic molecules such as DNA and RNA could have been formed from abiotic inorganic compounds.  We have yet to effectively address this question here on earth let alone elsewhere in other “multi-verses”.  Chance alone is not the answer.  Not one of our world’s most advanced biochemical labs has been able to form DNA or RNA molecules from scratch even under controlled laboratory conditions.  Secondly, whether he recognizes it or not, Hawking is theorizing on non-observable and non-testable phenomena and therefore he is treading outside the standard bounds of science and into the circle of faith and religion.  His use of the term “Spontaneous Creation” has faith stamped all over it.  By conceding a beginning such as the big bang where all that there is now came from nothing, Hawking himself is pointing to a cause or Creator.  By doing so this great theoretical physicist unknowingly positions himself within the circle of faith and outside the experimental ring of science.  So why is it that even though we cannot fully explain or comprehend how anything could come from nothing, our self-centeredness drives us to miss clear evidence of an omnipotent creator while embracing the vastness of infinity as the answer and cause of all things?  It must be our blind arrogance that science will give us all the answers - if not today then maybe tomorrow.  The obvious flaw here is that science is indeed not our only source of knowledge.