Observing the Unobservable: Can Science Prove the Supernatural?
“To make God a hypothesis to be tested or a conclusion to an argument is to lose the experiential basis of religion” -Ian Barbour In modern times, the popular scientific community has, by and large, frowned upon the mixing of scientific inquiry and religious belief. If the supernatural exists, it must be substantiated on the basis of experience rather than science. Or so they say. Whether this assumption is valid depends mostly on the definition of “the supernatural”. It is impossible to tell whether I have broken the speed limit unless I know what the speed limit is. Supernatural: An entity or entities existing outside the realm of physical observation. Under that definition, it is plain that the supernatural realm cannot be quantified or equated through science. If it could be, it would cease to be supernatural – again, under that definition. But suppose that we use another definition: Supernatural: Physical occurrences or states of existence that cannot be reasonably explained through careful scientific observations. If you think about it, for hundreds of years the dark side of the moon fit the parameters of the supernatural under the first definition! We know it exists but we can’t see it. . . . We will use the second definition instead. So we move on to the next question: how can we prove the existence of the supernatural under the second definition? Or, more appropriately, can we? According to logic, the answer is yes: A. “Physical evidence inexplicable by randomly occurring natural processes” exists. B. All “Physical evidence that randomly occurring natural processes cannot reasonably explain” is all “the supernatural.” :. “The supernatural” exists. So if we can find “evidence that randomly occurring natural processes do not explain” (premise A), we have evidence for the supernatural! “The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.” -Robert R. Coveyou In order for an event to occur by chance, it must be mathematically possible. It is an accepted scientific maxim that the mathematical level of absolute impossibility is 1 chance in “1080+1”. Not just a mathematical rarity. Anything above that number is an absolute impossibility. Why? Physicists estimate that there are 1080 atoms in the entire universe. A chance of 1 in 1080 is like picking a predetermined atom at random perfectly the first time. If you had 10 billion chances per second, it would still take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the assumed evolutionary age of the universe before you could get it right. The claim that anything less than 1 in 1080 is like saying that 2+2=1. So what are the chances of life forming by random chance processes? The famous atheist Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that the chances of the DNA of the simplest known living cell assembling by chance, with all the necessary ingredients already there, is (are you ready): 1 chance in 1040000 The standard evolutionary rebuttal for this is that these experiments assumed only one type of life was possible. With all the ways life might assemble, who knows how many different chances we might have! If there are an infinite number of ways life could be made up, then a number like 1040000 is really no trouble at all. But such arguments ignore everything we know about information. The simplest cells do just a few things: ingest raw material, build proteins out of the raw material, and build DNA and cell mechanisms out of the proteins. But no matter what form of life, DNA, or information is used, the level of information for a set of specific tasks remains the same. Remember, Hoyle’s calculations assumed all necessary ingredients were already there. The only thing lacking was information. 1040000 different characteristics of specific information. And do not bore me by claiming that a less complex life form exists that is easy to make, reproduce, and subsequently use to harness natural selection and mutation. If there is, then show me! If not, the origin of life is a phenomenon that clearly fits the definition of “Physical evidence inexplicable by randomly occurring natural processes”. And remember: A. “Physical evidence inexplicable by randomly occurring natural processes” exists. B. All “Physical evidence that randomly occurring natural processes cannot reasonably explain” is all “the supernatural.” :. “The supernatural” exists. God is real, folks. And we have all violated His laws. The question is: what are you going to do about it? In Him, David S. MacMillan III