Peeking under the layers, suggesting God

By Doug Wolter

A Washington University physicist, it was reported last week, is in the process of making potentially revolutionary discoveries about the shape of the universe.

By measuring gravitational forces as tiny as the weight of a bit of grain salt cut into 60 billion pieces, Ramanath Cowsik hopes to unlock what a colleague has said could “change our understanding of how everything in the universe works.”

It boggles the mind. Science is explaining origins nowadays at a rate that amazes even the scientists. No wonder, then, that we normal people remain so far behind the ever-expanding learning curve.

Perhaps we lack such knowledge because so many of us resist new knowledge.

Gravity as a concept serves as an excellent example of the human tendency toward self-delusion. Centuries ago, Isaac Newton, a devout Christian, said that bodies in motion tend to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force such as gravity or friction. That simple statement was received with horror by mathematician Gottfried Liebnitz, co-inventor of the calculus. Liebnitz, himself a devout Christian, angrily denounced Newton’s claim that planets can maintain their motion without God’s hand actively pushing them along.

Preposterous as that sounds, it’s only one example of many where God-fearing literalists attempted to replace good science with simple and false readings of the Bible. Scripture, in fact, makes no such claim that the laws of physics aren’t sufficient in themselves.

Likewise, plenty of unproven theories have been kept alive by true believers on the other side. Just as Creationists who say God populated our world in six 24-hour earth days (according to Genesis, in fact, earth’s sun wasn’t created until Day Four) jump to conclusions, thoughtless too are the classic Darwinists who, against mounting scientific evidence and out of a misguided effort to uphold separation of church and state, are determined to take the Creator out of the equation. Science ought to be about exploration, and if we do it correctly, popular notions both scientific-based and religious might be exploded.

The problem with the way origins are taught in schools today is that evidence is being held hostage between the secular and the religious world views. Our understanding would be deeper if the religionists would stop interpreting the Bible to conform to their preconceptions, and if the secularists would refrain from acting as if the idea of a higher intelligence is unconstitutional.

Those quick to dismiss intelligent design have been guilty of the same hyperbole as God’s defenders. Bertrand Russell once famously remarked that the human race is just “a curious accident in a backwater,” but today the evidence more closely coalesces around an observation made by physicist Gerald Schroeder, author of “The Science of God,” who wrote that life appears to be “a put-up job.”

Only 40 years ago, two-thirds of scientists believed in an eternal universe. Today, every self-respecting thinker believes the universe had a beginning (the “big bang"), which doesn’t necessarily require a God, but points in that direction. The record seems to indicate that life developed not randomly, not gradually, but in sudden bursts into amazing complexity — and in a way not inconsistent with a open-minded reading of Genesis. If the energy of the big bang were changed by just one part of 10 to the 120th power, there would be no life anywhere in the universe.

There does indeed seem to be an intelligence behind nature, and it’s a nature so complex and perfect as to not require constant meddling. If God does exist, He seems to have wound a clock with innumerable parts that has kept perfect time from the beginning — providing all the materials necessary for life to develop as it has. The concept may upset some Christians who prefer to believe the world would fly apart if God should divert his attention even for a moment. But, rather, there’s something perfect about the idea that nature should have been so sufficient.

In the midst of all the new research changing our interpretations of Genesis, as well as changing our assumptions underlying Darwinism and how the universe works, secularists and religionists continue arguing about which interpretations are permissible in public schools. Frankly, it makes sense to continue resisting efforts to introduce Creationism, a thinly-disguised effort to teach religion, in science classes. But likewise, if the study of origins leads scientists to speculate on the nature of God, why shouldn’t students be allowed that same luxury?

It’s bad faith to make simplistic judgments about Genesis. Likewise, it’s time to bury the age-old hostility between religion and science. With every new discovery, the two spheres seem less far apart than some would prefer them to be.

Doug Wolter is night news editor at The Free Press and a member of the editorial board.