There is little doubt that science explains much of what surrounds us: It predicts weather, explains reproduction, charts celestial movements and even helps make sense of erratic human behaviour. It deals with what can be observed and replicated. I have no idea how gravity works, but accept that scientists understand why the seas remain wrapped around our spherical Earth. Yet scientific explanations do not necessarily answer fundamental questions raised by non-scientific thought. Science may explain the “how” without settling the “why.”
One “other” attempt to explain the who, what, where, why and when of existence is creationism. Its argument is simple: Everything we observe, including ourselves, was brought into being by a creator. Evolution, meanwhile, provides a powerful scientific account of how life and other phenomena developed, making predictions based on observable evidence. Yet those who swear by the atom sometimes lack the humility to acknowledge that fundamental questions remain unanswered. What, for instance, are the ultimate origins of the universe? What laws govern its existence and why is there something rather than nothing?
Some scientists, having failed to satisfactorily answer this existential question, have resorted to explanations that might sound surprisingly close to creationism. Stephen Hawking, for instance, argued: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Replace “gravity” with “creator,” and we confront an intriguing philosophical possibility: Both explanations appeal to something more fundamental than the phenomena we observe. Yet science’s success, coupled with religion’s occasional failure to explain scientific phenomena, can lead us to accept Hawking’s “nothing” while scoffing at religious explanations that seem remarkably similar.
If it is acceptable to assume that a fundamental law such as gravity has no external origin and that its existence makes the emergence of the universe possible, why should it be unreasonable to contemplate a creator as its source? My point is simple: If such an assumption is acceptable, creationists need not be troubled by the question, “If God created the universe, who created God?” As those quick to quote the Bible might themselves argue: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” – Matthew 7:3.
Scientists who regard Hawking as one of science’s prophets need a refresher course in humility. Science does not provide definitive answers to the existential questions that have troubled humanity throughout its existence. Science should continue asking questions, while philosophy and theology remain legitimate avenues for seeking answers to mysteries that science has yet to resolve.
