Chapter 1
Philosophical
materialism, the foundation of Western academia, is showing ever-widening cracks.
Materialistic
evolutionists believe that life began and emerged on earth as a result of
unguided purposeless processes. It
makes little difference whether we call them materialists or metaphysical
naturalists. To the materialist,
only matter (with its governing laws) is real. In other words, to the believer in philosophical
materialism, reality cannot exist beyond physical objects in a space-time
universe governed by the laws of science.
He allows no room for intelligent purpose, guidance, design, or final
cause. To a metaphysical
naturalist, observable events are explainable only by natural causes that are,
in principle, discernable using the scientific method Ði.e. scientifically
testable (or falsifiable). This
view has also been called ÒscientismÓ.
These philosophical positions are all similar, and all atheistic. No supernatural agency is allowed.
As
the basic philosophical foundation for secular education and research in
Western academia, philosophical materialism has reigned supreme for about 150
years. If any academician working
in a secular educational institution were to challenge this foundation, his
challenge would be deemed unacceptable --a forbidden taboo --by most who hold
the reigns of power in Western secular education at all levels.
But
philosophical materialism is now showing ever-widening cracks in its
here-to-for monolithic foundation.
And there are good reasons why it should no longer reign supreme. A little over a decade ago, it was
discovered that distant galaxies are accelerating away from each other (and
from our own Milky Way galaxy).
The only explanation for this is that there must exist something called
Òdark energyÓ. ÒDark EnergyÓ has
been calculated to be 72% of all the mass-energy in our universe Ðand yet all
we know about it is that ÒitÕs thereÓ.
Astrophysicists also tell us that, in order for starlight to bend the
way it does (according. to general relativity theory), there must exist
something called Òdark matterÓ.
All we know about Òdark matterÓ is that it makes up 23% of the
mass-energy of the universe, and that it must Òbe thereÓ.
The
inescapable conclusion is that, so far, all we know about 95% of our physical
universe is that it must exist.
What about the remaining
5%? Oh, thatÕs the sum
total of everything we can actually observe to exist: more than 100 billion
galaxies, each with more that 100 billion stars. And presumably, most of these 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
stars are surrounded by planets, asteroids, dust and gas.
In
space, we can detect Òbackground
radiationÓ left over from the Òbig bangÓ. ItÕs sources have been mapped, (ItÕs called a ÒW mapÓ.) Those sources radiate in the
microwave region at a temperature only 3 degrees above absolute zero. Knowing the rate of cooling of these cosmic
sources, it has been calculated that the big bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago. But, using the best telescopes on earth (and now in space),
astronomers have been able to observe galaxies only a little more than 13 billion light-years away. The conclusion is that we know almost
nothing about more than 95% of our universe.
This
means that philosophical materialists know almost nothing about a rather large
percentage of our universe, except that Òit existsÓ. At the present time, all they can do is speculate. To assume that no reality exists beyond
that which scientists can describe, when scientists have described less than 5%
of whatÕs there, is very difficult to swallow.
In 1967 I obtained a tenure-track faculty position at
California State University, Long Beach.
LetÕs suppose that at that time, I went around saying that scientists
only observe or investigate 5% of
their universe. The rest of it
--95%-- is a complete mystery. To
astronomers it is ÒdarkÓ, --and probably, as long as I live, scientists will be
unable to discover anything about it.
I would have been ridiculed
by most of my faculty colleagues.
Of course, thereÕs an important difference between
what scientists may, in the future be able to observe, and what they, in
principle, will never be able to observe.
But, nonetheless, philosophical materialism is a faith position Ða faith
position that has become, during the past two centuries, the bedrock of Western
academia.
The scientific method has limits.
Materialistic scientists choose to limit their belief
system to what is
knowable
using the scientific method. An
ostrich with his head in the sand has willfully chosen to be blind to what he
cannot see or experience.
Philosophical materialists do little better. Philosophical materialists believe that what they cannot
know, using the scientific method, doesnÕt exist.
How does the scientific method actually work? Scientists often ponder a question or
problem associated with an incomplete scientific explanation. They plan new experiments or
observations relevant to the question theyÕve been pondering. If their empirical results support an
existing theory, then more
confidence is placed in it. In
other words the theory has not been weakened or falsified . But if the existing theory is weakened
by negative results, then it should be changed or replaced. Further experiments or observations
must then be planned in order to further test the theory. The results of
science are always tentative. The
scientific method never ends with absolute truth.
Belief in philosophical materialism requires belief in virtually infinitesimal probabilities.
To believe
philosophical materialism is valid is to believe in almost infinitesimal
probabilities. LetÕs start with
the physical constants associated with the strengths of the gravitational
force, the electromagnetic force and the strong and weak forces that hold an
atom together. Going on to
consider the masses of elementary particles, we run into a situation where the
values of those physical constants cannot vary beyond super-tight tolerances in
order for matter to exist at all.
Then letÕs consider the origin of the first living
organism on earth. It must have
had the ability to obtain, from its environment, at least the energy to reproduce
itself using no other form of life.
How complex must this first living thing have been? Those who know most about single celled
organisms claim that over 250 different types of specific protein molecules
must have been necessary. Could
the first living organism have
come to exist by Òblind chanceÓ ?
The probability is close to infinitesimal. HereÕs why.
LetÕs assume that a very long time ago, there existed
a pool on earth containing a concentrated mixture of 20 different kinds of
L-type amino acids. Assuming
random collisions at a realistic rate, amino acids could have joined together
to form peptide molecules (simple proteins). It has been calculated that if these random collisions
happened over a period of one billion years, then thereÕs a reasonable
probability that a polypeptide with a specific sequence of 50 amino acids would
have formed.(ref?) But we would
need each protein to be about eight times longer in order to function in that
first living cell. And we would
need at least 250 protein molecules each with a specific structure. That means that after a billion years
we would only be about 1/2000th of the way toward the existence of
the first living cell on earth.
Then consider the DNA sequence (with 500,000 nucleotide base pairs) required
to make the second living cell (by cell division). Now if we now consider the origin of the anything like a DNA
code, the probability again gets vanishingly close to infinitesimal.
Compared to the complexity of complex organic
molecules, the first living cellular organism (that could reproduce itself and
obtain the chemical energy to do so), must have been exceedingly complex. But then to say that it evolved by chance is to beg the
question. The reason is that when
the word ÒevolutionÓ is used, the reader (especially a K-12 student reader) has
no way of knowing whether the writer intended a definition that would allow the
process to be providentially guided.
Of course, if the writer was a philosophical materialist, then his
worldview would never allow a guided process anyway.
In the Spring of 2010, a Long Beach, Calif. high
school student asked her biology teacher a question about the origin of humans. Her teacher responded by saying that humans (just as all
other species of life) evolved by accident. (This answer must have carried with it the assumption that
natural selection can also involve chance events.) Obviously that teacher responded in such a fashion
because of her materialistic philosophical bias. In the mind of that instructor, all forms of life on earth
could only have appeared because of evolutionary processes involving chance
events, no matter how improbable any of those events might have been. She was constrained by her worldview to
say no more. With this mindset,
chance events, even if they involve only vanishingly small (nearly
infinitesimal) probabilities must still have occurred, because the living forms
that came into existence as a result do exist.
However, any student or teacher, who holds a theistic
worldview, would believe that
events involved in the origin and appearance of life were most likely guided by
a supreme being . This would make
the appearance of the first living
organism on earth just as
miraculous as the virgin birth of
Jesus Christ.
Philosophical materialists say that homo Sapiens (or
mankind. as we know him) evolved by unguided processes: natural selection,
blind chance, etc. If that is the case, then how did consciousness
evolve? Some scientists
(known as physicalists or functionalists) say that consciousness is an illusion
because only physical activity of purely physical components can function in
the brain. Not only does that make
us Òrobot-likeÓ, but the human brain (the most complex functioning structure we
know about in the universe) must then
have been the result of unguided, self-organizing processes.
Again, the materialistic evolutionary processes of blind chance, natural
selection, etc. must have done it all!
In summary, then, since philosophical materialists limit their belief
system only to what science can know, they are stuck with a series of virtually
infinitesimal probabilities for
events that have occurred in the 5% of the universe that scientists know about!
Given
the above, where should a gambler put his money? --on atheistic philosophical materialism, with its
infinitesimal probabilities?
--on agnosticism (and be grouped with those who say they donÕt know
enough to make up their minds)? Or
should he bet on the likelihood that an intelligent designer somehow was behind
it all? Galileo and Newton,
those who deserve the credit for ushering in the modern age of science, were
Christians who believed in the intelligent design of the universe.
The enterprise of science requires
presuppositions that philosophical materialism cannot validate.
Scientific conclusions depend entirely upon the
certainty of presuppositions upon which the scientific method is based. Galileo and Newton believed (by faith)
in the following presuppositions:
1.
The external world is real and it
exists. (Also, there is only one
way the world really is, and reality
is language-independent.)
2.
The external world is uniformly and
unchangeably orderly.
3.
Truth about the external world exists
and is knowable.
4.
Laws of logic exist as universal
invariant entities that apply to
reality.
5.
Numerical and mathematical systems
(including their associated
symbolic language) can be reliably used in scientific
investigation.
6.
Human beings have the
necessary reliable sensory and cognitive faculties to discover scientific truth
and to form justified beliefs about it.
Most people in Western societies accept these
presuppositions without question Ðwithout even thinking about them.(from Mo3,
152) Where did the above
presuppositions come from? From
European Christianity Ðthe kind of Christianity that Galileo and Newton
believed in.
Science did not begin in the Orient --and, for good
reason. In general, Eastern
religions embrace far different presuppositions. Buddism, for instance, holds that the material world is an
illusion, and all particulars within it are constantly changing illusions. Logical contradictions pose no problem,
and the only universal is a universal spirit.(ref?) It is fair to say that any attempt to discover scientific
truth about the universe would never even occur to anyone with the
presuppositions of eastern mysticism.
But, to the philosophical materialist, each of the
above presuppositions necessary for scientific progress, has no source or
reason to be true, except by an agreed-upon consensus among human beings. Philosophical materialists have fallen
into a trap. They believe that for
any statement to be true it must be testable using the scientific method. If the philosophical materialist
believes that matter and its governing laws are the sum total of reality, then
he has just put himself on the horns of a very serious transcendental
dilemma. He cannot justify his
belief that any particular scientific law is true or valid, other than to say that,
as far as he knows, no evidence to
the contrary has ever been found.
To him no Biblical miracle could ever have happened because if it did,
scientific law would have been violated.
How then can the scientist know for sure whether his
scientific conclusions are true or not?
He canÕt. All he can do is
believe (by faith) that truth
comes from using the scientific method.
But are any of the above six transcendental presuppositions (required to
use the scientific method) empirically testable or falsifiable? Absolutely not.
At this point, a philosophical materialist might
decide to change his mind and choose another set of presuppositions (or laws of
logic) that he finds more
appealing. If he were to choose a
set of presuppositions that allow rational contradiction, then why not? Buddists do. But if he chooses a system which allows
x to equal non-x, then he should stay away from anything that requires
mathematical reasoning.
ÒPostmodernÓ thinkers such as Neitzsche, Wittgenstein
and Heidigger have argued
against some of the above six
presuppositions.. They have
rejected what they call Òmetaphysical realismÓ. They claim that laws of logic are only Western conventions,
and that reality is language-dependent after all. They have no problem with saying that God really exists for
those who embrace monotheistic religions, but does not really exist for an
atheist. Doing science would be
impossible for someone with a postmodernist worldview. The postmodernist has a completely
different view of what knowledge is and what counts as true knowledge. The postmodernist would disagree
with the above six propositions necessary to do science, as much as would the
Eastern mystic. Eastern mystics
usually choose to embrace laws of logic
completely at odds with the laws of logic derived from the Greeks Ðlaws of logic that have been
subsequently adopted by virtually the entire Western world.
The philosophical materialist says Òtruth can only be
found by the application of reason and laws of logic to empirical
experienceÓ. But he has no way to
validate the very statement he has just made. He is in no better shape than one who says Òall metaphysical
statements are meaningless,Ó when
he has just made a metaphysical statement. He is in no better shape than one
who says Òthere is no absolute truth except the absolute truth that there is no
absolute truthÓ.
But to the theist (and especially to the Christian)
the existence of absolute truth is not an issue. It is not an issue because the supreme personal God he believes in is the source of all
absolute truth. This includes all
metaphysical truth as well as the universal invariant laws of logic required to
do science.