The fact that the foundation of Christianity rests on belief in the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ, does little to validate the faith in the eyes of many. This is especially true among intelligent persons and the well educated. The objection of the intellectual is not without good reason. After all, how could any educated person believe in miracles? Much less that a man could return to life after being dead and buried for three days?
While there are many reasons to believe that the resurrection of Jesus is the most logical conclusion from a historical perspective, the question remains: Is the resurrection of Jesus scientifically impossible?
In order to answer this question we must first understand what claims science has to offer in regards to the nature of life in general.
According to Louis Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis, life cannot originate from non-life. Yet modern science insists that the process of Abiogenesis is responsible for the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic compounds.
The term Abiogenesis was first coined by "Darwin's Bulldog," Thomas Henry Huxley in an attempt to redefine the Laws of Biogenesis. While the Laws of Biogenesis relate to life arising from non-life, Abiogenesis specifically refers to life arising from non-living materials over billions of years of unguided natural selection and gradual evolution—a process which has never been observed in nature.
That said, the Miller-Urey Experiments of 1952 did succeed in synthesizing amino acids from chemical compounds. However, the results of these experiments are far from conclusive proof of Abiogenesis.
First of all, the experiments were conducted under controlled laboratory conditions and were therefore far different than the chaotic natural conditions of the primordial earth.
Secondly, the atmospheric conditions simulated in the lab were based on the scientific understanding of the 1950's. Scientists have since theorized that the atmosphere on earth in the distant past was quite different than those represented in the Miller-Urey Experiments. Since the experiment was contaminated by incorrect data from the beginning, the results of the experiment are likewise contaminated, and do not offer an accurate portrayal of the origin of life.
Finally, the fact that the amino acids were synthesized in a controlled environment through a process of trial-and-error offers proof that life is not possible without intelligent design. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey used their intelligence to manipulate the environment in such a way that amino acids could form. Without the purposeful guidance of this outside intelligence the experiment would have failed completely. (To say nothing of the fact that the experiment utilized pre-existing materials which would also have had to have formed by chance in a purely naturalistic universe.)
It can be concluded, therefore, that life cannot originate from non-living materials without some form of intelligent interference from the outside. Yet modern science tells us that the spontaneous, unguided development of life from non-living materials is not only possible, but has actually occurred! Since anything that is non-living is by its very definition dead, one must therefore conclude that life can indeed come from death.
If modern science tells us that all life originated from death (ie. non-living materials) how then can science legitimately claim that it is impossible for a dead person to come back to life? If one can believe in the miraculous emergence of complex life from non-living materials then, conceivably, one should have no trouble at all believing in the miraculous resurrection of the dead, since it is far more likely for life to return to something that was once living than for life to emerge from non-life through natural processes and random chance.
In short, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not scientifically impossible. It is extremely improbable—as all miracles are. But it is not impossible. For with God, all things are possible.
See Also:
