Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Wall Street Journal Loses Credibility Saying Science Proves God

The Wall Street Journal just took a nose dive in credibility this day. It happened when I found and read an article in their pages called; Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God. Excuse me? Science does not make the case for God. In fact, when real science is being done God never comes into the picture.

The writer does what so many other people do. They automatically assume that if humans don't know the cause, God did it. They go by the idea that all wisdom is held within the pages of the Bible, while science really knows little. Because scientific knowledge is incomplete, and never will be complete, God is the only answer. For these apologetics that may be a true statement, but for people who ground themselves in reality, it is not a true statement.

Using the argument of the fine tuning of the universe is ludicrous. What do these fools think, that there was some "thing" behind a magical dial, picking the right numbers? The universe's gravitational force, or all fundamental forces for that matter, are what they are just because they are. It was humans task to figure out what the value is, not to figure out "who" made it that way. No one made it that way. It just is.

What they are talking about is the "Teleological Argument for the Existence of God". That argument is so full of holes one might think someone shot it with a logic shotgun, and they did. Take a look at this little video and you may see the total fallacy in the Teleological Argument for the Existence of God.

Debunking "Fine Tuning" Arguments for God

The writer talks about how the discovered factors for life grew from 2 to well over 200, and that; 
"As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn't be here."

What a load of rubbish! Has he never heard of extremophiles? With the discovery of these organisms the possibility of life has increased, not decreased. He is going by an assumption that life as he knows it is all that there is, or could be, because the writer is ignorant of the facts, or chooses to ignore them.

Just in case you don't know what extremophiles are, I'll point you to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration document that explains.

What is an extremophile? 

An extremophile is an organism that thrives in extreme environments. Some of these organisms live in boiling hot water. Others in freezing cold. Some live in acidic conditions that would strip the flesh from your bones, but lets ignore the facts if you're trying to prove God.

The writer offers; "Doesn't assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?" 

Inconceivable to him maybe. The writer may not be able to conceive of such things, but a person of reason may. Just because a person doesn't have the capacity to conceive something doesn't mean that it is not there, or that God did it. We are here, and life abounds. Whether we can conceive the odds have nothing to do with it, and is not proof of a God.

The writer mentions Carl Sagen in his article. He fails to mention a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It is central to scientific method, and a key issue for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere. Yet the writer ignores this too. Instead offering only circular logic, and nothing that is testable. Something like, if we don't know the answer, default to "God did it". They want science to prove God exists, and if science can not prove God does not exist, that means God exists. Let's turn it around. That is only fare isn't it? Let them prove God exists? Where is that extraordinary evidence? Where is that incontrovertible proof? I say there is none.

The writer also tries some name dropping using Fred Hoyle, who rejected the "Big Bang" theory by the way. "Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.” Not once was the fact mentioned that fully 85% of the top scientists in the world reject the idea of a creator. 

The Wall Street Journal is a respected publication. I am puzzled as to why they would offer an article which gives illogical theocratic opinions concerning the existence of a God. I'm not the only one who wonders why they would publish such a piece. I've found several forums discussing this already this morning.

It is my opinion that the Wall Street Journal does a disservice to the citizens when they offer up such drivel as  Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God. The WSJ has lost respect, and credibility with the publishing of that nonsense. They should stick to reporting on Wall Street. There is more than enough action to keep them busy there.

"God & Cosmology" - 2014 Greer-Heard Forum

Published on Feb 27, 2014
Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig in Dialogue + Q&A

The Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum in Faith and Culture is a program of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.