IN A REPORT from the National Science Foundation distributed to science teachers (NSF 63-15, May, 1963, pp. 1, 2) it was stated, "More scientific and technological discoveries have been made in the past fifteen years than in all previous recorded time." The truly phenomenal practical triumphs of science during this brief period, indeed, during the past century, have earned much well-deserved public respect for science. Its prestige has mushroomed like an atomic cloud. Government support of scientific research is at previously undreamed of levels, enrollments in science courses are enjoying an all-time high, supplemental science libraries have been circulated among hundreds of elementary and secondary schools, even works of science fiction are competing with best sellers. The public is becoming science conscious.
We have all seen the "impossible" performed so many times in our own short generation (television, atomic fission, satellites, open-heart surgery, heart transplants, et cetera) that nearly any hypothesis pro posed in the name of science is likely to gain a sympathetic hearing. In the minds of the public more generally accepted scientific theories are seldom distinguished from well-established laws and the whole framework is considered as factual. "If it has not been demonstrated completely yet, it certainly will be in five years, or ten at the most," is a common attitude. But herein is a danger that needs serious consideration.
The explosive growth of scientific knowledge is not only completely changing our way of life but is also threatening to destroy our cultural foundation, our concepts of meaning, our sense of values. The theory of evolution, first conceived in the field of biology, and the uniformitarian principle, first applied to earth history, have been incorporated into nearly every field and have become the major integrating principles for the broad scope of human knowledge and inquiry.
No one has a greater appreciation than a scientist, who is pressing back the bound aries of knowledge, that science is not a great monolith. While the usefulness of laws or working principles in some areas is established quite beyond question and may be altered relatively little in the future, much of the fabric in other areas is still tenuous and not at all certain. And while this awareness often does not reach the layman, any competent scientist knows all too well the hazards and limitations of scientific generalizations, the many diverse possibilities and points of view, at least in his own subspecialty. In the words of R. E. D. Clark, "Science speaks with more than one voice to our generation."
The purpose of this article is to introduce several books that represent, not the dominant voice of science, but nonetheless voices that deserve a hearing. The book by R. E. D. Clark, The Universe: Plan or Accident? The Religious Implications of Modern Science (Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, 1961, 240 pages, $3.50), is a voice with a message that merits serious consideration by Adventist ministers and workers.
Often we expend much energy searching out answers for objections to the Bible or Christian faith, objections posed by scientists or philosophers, or again we may tax our faith struggling with theoretical problems for which no one has enough avail able data to arrive at certain verifiable solutions. At times this is necessary in order to protect the church. Dr. Clark's book is refreshing in that while objections and problems are in no way neglected, it represents primarily a positive approach to science and religion. The author skillfully and thoroughly presents what to him is the most fundamental evidence in the natural world of a Creator, a personal God who designed, created, and controls the universe and this earth, with the mosaic of life upon it in particular.
Clark admits that "to the devout religious person the question may seem unimportant. He believes because he has faith, and science will neither strengthen nor diminish that faith. But," he maintains, "some of us were born to be doubting Thomases. For us, the quest is profoundly important and every step in its pursuit is exciting."— Page 14.
As a chemist (Ph.D., Cambridge University) Clark draws many of his examples from chemistry and related physical sciences. But his discussions give ample evidence that he is well versed in biological science and philosophy as well. The treatment is thorough, careful, and logical. By means of simple but appropriate illustrations Clark is able to portray clearly, fundamental scientific concepts to the general reader. Although the scientist or philosopher will discern most clearly the implications of the data presented, perceptive students of theology or any field will find in this volume a wealth of material that deserves serious and careful consideration.
In the first two chapters the author discusses many of the one-way irreversible processes in nature by which energy is constantly becoming more evenly distributed in the universe—the "great clock" is, as it were, "running down" and the logical corollary is that at some time (or times) in the past it must have been "wound up." The remarkable fact that the clock is still running—flaming suns still give off heat, radio active elements have not all disintegrated and disappeared—suggests that the universe is not eternal—there must have been a definite time of creation. Energy systems must have a prime source, organization, or author. The suggestion that, given infinite time, there might be a chance "self-winding" does not merit serious consideration. This would be incomparably less probable than for kettles of water spontaneously to heat up and start boiling by chance or for the water in streams by chance to reverse direction and flow uphill. Such a "chance theory of the universe undermines the ground of science itself." Clark concludes that a divine Source is the only reasonable solution, since such Creation is simply the reverse of all known laws of science.
The following sections consider how our earth, "far from being the kind of a planet we should expect to result from chance," appears to be designed for life. The size, rotation, distance from the sun, the atmosphere of life-supporting gases, the chemistry of elementary matter, the remarkable properties of water, carbon dioxide, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and a host of other elements all point strongly to the work of a Master Designer.
Later sections deal with the chemistry of life, the overwhelming complexity of living organisms, the impossibility of spontaneous origin of life, the inadequacy of natural selection to bridge the gaps between basic types of structures in different groups of animals, the evidence of design and purpose in living systems, of a cosmic mind over the natural world.
Chapter 14 points to the fallacies and inadequacies in the arguments of critics of design as an evidence of God. Those who maintain that certain instances of design in living things can be attributed to natural selection, ordinarily "ignore altogether" the equal evidence of design in the inanimate world which cannot conceivably be explained away in this fashion.
He points out that—
Those who argue against belief in a Creator often fail to realize that most of their arguments might be turned against science itself. Some complain that we cannot see God but can only infer that He exists, but forget that the same objection applies to thousands of scientific facts which all men everywhere accept. Others say that since we cannot tell how God created the world there is no point in saying that He did so, but the same people are often warm supporters of the theory of evolution which they accept uncritically as a fact, though they do not know how variations—the raw materials of evolution—occur. . . .
And so we might go on. It is probably no exaggeration to say that there is not a single argument against belief in God—including the argument from the existence of evil (see later, Chapter XVI), which could not with equal ease, be used to dis prove the existence both of atoms and also of many other established facts of science.—Pages 179, 180.
It is well known that some philosophers who acknowledge the possible existence of a great "cosmic mind" possessed of "enormous ingenuity and power" still maintain that from science alone we have no evidence whether the Creator is or is not a personal, moral Being. While some of his arguments in chapter 15 may be challenged, Clark evaluates this line of reasoning, presents a cogent case that "science points unmistakably to the existence of a Creator of vast intelligence, of limitless power and wisdom, and yet personal in the fullest sense."
In the following chapter, which is concerned with "Evil," the author gives a stimulating discussion in which he points out basic fallacies that often color our appraisal of good and evil. While he admits that the evidence from science alone on the moral nature of God is not conclusive, he still believes that the "enormously prevalent" "idea that the Creator-God of science is amoral" is not completely justified. And his reasoning here is hard to disregard completely:
Before accepting this reason, however, one fact should give us cause to think. If it is in any sense true that God created man—whether by a process of evolution or by a sudden creation—then God must be held responsible for the creation of what is in man and this must include man's sense of right and wrong: it must include our innate knowledge that the good is better than the bad.
For it will not do to suppose that God who Himself does not know the difference between good and evil should yet have made beings who are superior to Him in this respect. As well might we imagine a clockmaker who made a clock when he had no idea how a clock works. To reply that men do evil as well as good is beside the point— for they know, or are capable of knowing, that what they do is evil and no matter how they act, their inmost selves condemn the wrong decisions which they have made with their minds—decisions for which they, and sometimes others, are responsible.—Page 200.
Although it is doubtful that any reader will agree with every line of argument Clark presents, it is fair to say that this book represents a positive and valuable contribution to science and religion, a skillful and thorough study of a subject often clouded with confusion and misconceptions. To those who have caught a glimpse of the marvels of the natural world as manifest in the discoveries of recent decades his conclusion is full of meaning and certainly true as far as post-Flood man is concerned.
But this we know—that science brings us a vista of unending grandeur and wonder, a sense of the unfathomable riches of God, which was denied to former generations.—Page 236.
(To be continued)
