RE: [asa] Does science negate the need for God?

From: Christine Smith <>
Date: Thu Oct 30 2008 - 21:51:32 EDT

Hi Bernie,

Just jumping in here with my 2 terms of underscoring your point that "science doesn't know fact, we have much more to learn", I think your "1%" statement is fine...but if someone wanted to get picky, it would be easy to point out that since we don't know what "all" science includes, then there's no way to know what proportion of that whole, we actually know.

In Christ,
Christine (ASA member)

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at

--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Dehler, Bernie <> wrote:

> From: Dehler, Bernie <>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Does science negate the need for God?
> To: "" <>
> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 7:57 PM
> What did you think about my saying we only know about 1% of
> science? I never heard anyone else say that.
> ...Bernie
> ________________________________
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of Schwarzwald
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 5:44 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [asa] Does science negate the need for God?
> Heya Bernie. Some comments.
> * Were it me, I would not place so much emphasis on our
> ignorance - rather, I would point out that our continued
> discoveries in science and technology have uncovered nothing
> but mechanisms and methods which any creator would be
> capable of using towards a given end. Evolution and
> cosmology does not and cannot show 'All these things can
> be explained without God' - at most they show 'There
> are some of the natural tools God used in our history'.
> * In his debate with John Lennox, Dawkins ceded (though I
> still wish I could find a transcript of this) that a
> reasonable and respectable case could be made for a deistic
> God. So the high priest of atheism does not think that
> science rules out God. At most he argues science rules out
> the Christian God - but that is based on purposeful
> misunderstandings (an apparent insistence that a several
> thousand year old earth and a 6-day creation is the thought
> on which christianity stands or falls), and a shell-game
> (The Christian God is more than the deistic God, but there
> is nothing in the deistic God's capabilities that the
> Christian God lacks, and many of the properties are part of
> essential old arguments for God Himself. So any evidence for
> the deistic God becomes limited evidence for the Christian
> God.)
> * Personally, I'd word agnosticism differently. Rather
> I'd argue that science is incapable of ruling one way or
> the other on the question of God - no purely scientific
> needs God, no purely scientific theory excludes God, because
> it's simply a question science is incapable of handling.
> Even if there were an apparent miracle or sign, we would
> forever have to ask ourselves whether what we saw was a
> misunderstanding, a self-delusion, or delusion on the part
> of a powerful but lesser entity, or otherwise.
> I rather like the direction you're going and the tacts
> you're taking in the discussion. I personally am a big
> proponent of the intellectual justification of deism as a
> way of getting people to open their minds about the
> Christian God, though, so I'd probably handle this essay
> differently from you. My compliments, however, for taking up
> the task of defense in this case.
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Dehler, Bernie
> <<>>
> wrote:
> Here's the conclusion in my essay debate on a yahoo
> group- just FYI. Let me know if you have comments by which
> I could learn more.
> ...Bernie
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Resolved: Given the success of science, including
> evolution, there is no need for a God as posited by
> Christians to explain the universe.
> Bernie's conclusion to the negative:
> I think it is very helpful, in any debate, to try to grasp
> the big picture. It always helps to put things in
> perspective. The question of this debate strikes at the
> heart of the issue of today's "state of the
> art" in science. Let me ask you a question: what
> percentage of knowledge do we have of everything in the
> universe? My answer would be that we know less than 1%!
> That's almost nothing.
> Why would I rank it so low? Take for example the human
> genome. We have read it, but we still don't know the
> functions of most of the genes. We also don't know how
> genes control body growth and create complex organs (such as
> the brain, eye, heart, etc.). Take quantum physics- the
> Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was built specifically to try to
> understand how sub-atomic physics works.[1] How did
> "life" arise from "nonlife?" We are
> clueless (other than having a few hypotheses). We also know
> nothing about where the big bang came from, or what set it
> off (some scientists even propose a multiverse rather than
> big bang explanation for the universe).
> If I'm correct that our total knowledge of science is
> less than 1%, how foolish to say that the success of science
> has proved no need for God to explain how the universe got
> here.
> It is true that one doesn't have to have 100% knowledge
> to rule out certain hypotheses. For example, we know so
> very little about the human genome. However, what we do
> know does rule out the possibility that God created humans
> by fiat rather than evolution. There is overwhelming proof
> in the DNA that evolution of human from apelike animal
> actually happened (for just two examples, pseudogenes and
> human chromosome #2). We know so little about the human
> genome, but what we do know rules out the possibility of
> God's design by fiat.[2] However, there's nothing
> in the genome, or evolution, to discard the idea that
> evolution was the process that God used to create
> everything.
> To say that there is no need for God, simply because
> superstition has been rightly and routinely dismissed by
> science, is an unreasonable extrapolation. It is akin to
> "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." The
> most one could be is agnostic on the issue- not able to tell
> if God has His hand in the creation and sustaining of the
> universe. And here my opponent wants to go overboard and
> claim that we can know, because of the state of science,
> that God is not needed to explain the universe.
> In my mind it is an error to say either that science proves
> or disproves God's role in creating the universe. (I am
> not saying we are to assume that "God did it" when
> confronting any scientific mystery, as my opponent wrongly
> claimed.) There simply is not enough information to make
> the decision either way. Therefore, we are left to our own
> preconceptions- regarding if God exists or not. Since most
> scientists and doctors do believe in God, it is an
> indication that belief in God is not an unreasonable
> position.[3]
> Footnotes:
> [1] "What is the LHC?," National Science
> Foundation, <>
> Excerpt:
> Scientists predict that its very-high-energy proton
> collisions will yield extraordinary discoveries about the
> nature of the physical universe. Beyond revealing a new
> world of unknown particles, the LHC experiments could
> explain why those particles exist and behave as they do. The
> LHC experiments could reveal the origins of
> mass<>,
> shed light on dark
> matter<>,
> uncover hidden symmetries of the
> universe<>,
> and possibly find extra dimensions of
> space<>.
> [2]
> <>
> Excerpt:
> Online Etymology Dictionary
> 1384, from fiat lux "let there be light" in the
> Book of Genesis, from L. fiat "let it be done"
> (also used in the opening of M.L. proclamations and
> commands), third pers. sing. pres. subjunctive of fieri,
> used as passive of facere "to make, do" (see
> factitious<>).
> [3] Robert Roy Britt, "Scientists' Belief in God
> Varies Starkly by Discipline," LiveScience, 11 Aug.
> 2005,
> <>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 30 21:51:52 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 30 2008 - 21:51:52 EDT