Sorry, Science Doesn’t Make a Case for God. But That’s OK

Last week, Eric Metaxas wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal entitled “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.” In it, he argues that the parameters for human life are so precise that they are indicators of God’s existence. As he phrases it,

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart…The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? 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?

A fine-tuned universe is a compelling argument for God. It’s also deeply problematic.

Why? Two reasons.

Continue reading.

Follow us on