Creator

PUBLISHED : Sunday, 06 October, 1996, 12:00am
UPDATED : Sunday, 06 October, 1996, 12:00am

I appreciated David Wallen's article headlined, 'Questions of faith' (Sunday Morning Post, September 22), on the debate over the value of religious belief versus scientific inquiry.


Basically, he was saying that there are different kinds of truth and all are needed.


Unfortunately, many are misinformed about the progress of this debate, including some of the scientists which he quoted.


Contrary to their assertion that science has made belief in God superfluous, just the opposite is occurring.


Many non-theistic researchers are making statements such as George Greenstein's in The Symbiotic Universe (1988): 'As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or rather, Agency, - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?' George Smoot, project leader for the COBE experiment (Cosmic Background Explorer) has stated, 'What we found is evidence for the birth of the universe. It's like looking at God.' There are definite theological implications to be drawn from recent scientific observations. The fact that the universe is billions of years old, not quadrillions or infinitely old, implies that religious and philosophical systems depending on infinite age have no foundation in reality.


Since the universe can be traced back to a single origin of matter, energy, time and space, the cause of the universe must have existed and created independently of those dimensions.


Our galaxy and solar system exhibit more than 60 characteristics that require fine-tuning for their very existence and for the existence of life. Theologically, this implies a Creator who brought the universe into existence that is personal, intelligent, powerful and caring.


Scientific naturalists who try to preclude any discussion of theological significance make their own 'religious leap of faith' when they accept outdated Darwinian evolution as fact. Essentially they say, 'We are here, therefore, it must be true.' Such naturalists also avoid discussion of the ethical consequences of their philosophy which Mr Wallen pointed out has no moral base.


It is a deterministic view of man that denies our free will and humanity.


We have certainly seen the tragic results of such thinking in the Soviet Union and China, whose governments decreed atheism to be the law of the land. Now they are scrambling to make moral education a priority.


Rather than trying to make religion and science separate realms, both disciplines need to talk about what is true and how each can contribute to the overall knowledge of the other.


An organisation dedicated to facilitating this integration is Reasons to Believe, PO Box 5978, Pasadena, CA, 91117, USA. Web site address: http://www.reasons.org/reasons.


MARY SWEARENGEN Kowloon