Is the Resurrection of Jesus Scientifically Impossible?

   


    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:

Who is Jesus? 

   

Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?

The Dying and Rising God: Jesus or Osiris?

    

Creation vs. Evolution: Philosophy or Fact?

 

    Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been a topic of debate among religious and scientific communities since its inception in the mid 19th century. To this day, evolution is presented as scientific fact in nearly all educational institutions. Not to mention scientific journals and popular media. But does the Theory of Evolution's status as scientific fact, mean that it is a proven fact?
     Many religious fundamentalists would argue that Evolution is an unproven theory and therefore should not be taught as fact. This argument, however, is not founded in science. (Though, to be fair, I have used this argument myself in the past!)
    According to science, Evolution is a fact. That is to say, the theory has been tested by means of prediction and careful observation of the empirical evidence and has been found trustworthy within the naturalistic framework of the scientific method as a likely explanation of how life came to be. Therefore, by scientific definition, the Theory of Evolution is a fact. It has passed every test for credibility that empirical science has to offer.
   Thus the word "fact" has a different meaning within the scientific community than it does to the uninitiated masses. And understanding this difference is crucial if one is to give an accurate defense of Creationism.

    Even though the Theory of Evolution is classified as a scientific fact, Evolution itself is not a material fact. A paleontologist, for example, does not excavate evolution at a dig site. A paleontologist excavates fossils. When a geologist studies the formation of the Grand Canyon they are not observing layers of evolution; they are observing strata formations in the rocks. Likewise, an astronomer gazing into the heavens isn't witnessing the innumerable lights of distant evolution, they are looking at distant galaxies, stars and planets.

    The Theory of Evolution, therefore, is not something tangible. Rather it is an inference based on a philosophical presupposition. 

    The two dominate philosophies of modern science are Naturalism (the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, in which supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted) and Materialism (the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements or modifications, in which free will, thought, and consciousness are all illusions).
    Thus a scientist investigating the material evidence is forced to conclude that naturalistic evolution is the most likely explanation out of philosophical necessity. To do otherwise would undermine the very foundations of scientific discipline. In the words of the world renowned Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin:

    "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no mater how counter-intuitive, no mater how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."  
     
   In other words, the philosophies of naturalistic science take precedence over material evidence. For a scientist to "allow a Divine Foot in the door" is simply unacceptable. Therefore, science must ignore or dismiss any evidence contrary to its philosophical bias. Protecting the philosophies of Materialism and Naturalism is more important than following the evidence where it leads, if the evidence points to the existence of the supernatural.
 
   If a scientist is absolutely devoted to the core philosophies of science then their philosophical presuppositions will contaminate their interpretation of material facts without question. If a scientist believes in Materialism and natural cause, then they will make predictions based on this belief. They will conduct experiments based on these predictions, and any conclusion they arrive at will be influenced by their philosophical views.
     
    Naturalism dictates that man is the result of unguided natural processes over billions of years. He has no purpose, no reason for existing. He is, for all intents and purposes, the result of a cosmic accident—or worse, a cosmic mistake. Materialism makes the mistake of man even more apparent by reducing humanity to nothing more than a vessel for DNA—a means for "selfish genes" to reproduce and evolve.
    According to the Materialist, the thoughts of man are an illusion of matter. His arguments have no merit. Nor do his dreams and aspirations. The self doesn't exist, and neither does the human soul. The concept of God, morality, and religion in general are all evolved social characteristics. There is no evil, and no sin—only anti-social behavior that can be corrected by means of intervention.
    The most outspoken champions of Naturalism and Materialism have spent the last few decades celebrating the death of God at the hands of "science" and reason. But what they fail to realize is that by "killing God" they have also killed humanity, and have committed intellectual suicide along the way.
    If one chooses to believe the doctrines of Materialism then one is forced to admit that the creation-evolution debate is completely pointless. According to Materialism, the arguments and beliefs of both sides are nothing more than an illusion. There is no truth to discover and no conscious thought. Therefore there is no argument. Creationist objections don't really exist and neither do the arguments of the Materialist. Both the arguments and the individuals themselves are illusions of matter.

    With philosophies like this dominating virtually every level of science and academia, is it any wonder that we find ourselves living in a world ready to tear itself apart?

    The contrast between the naturalistic view of man becomes even more vivid when compared to the traditional Christian Philosophies that dominated Western Civilization for more than 2,000 years:

    Both Naturalism and Materialism claim that man is a mistake; that he is little more than animated goo with no purpose, who may or may not actually possess consciousness.
   
   The Bible says man is created in the image of God and elevates him to a position of honor and authority over all creation. (Genesis 1:26-28, Psalm 8:3-8)
   
    Naturalism claims that all life—including mankind—evolves through natural selection and mutation alone. The stronger, more fit forms of life dominate the weaker forms in order to pass on their genes to the next generation. Thus life improves itself by eliminating those who are less fit to survive.
   
    The Bible teaches us to follow Jesus' example of love and compassion; to take care of those who are less fortunate, and to view others as being more important than ourselves. (Philippians 2:1-11, James 1:27) According to Jesus, man is not elevated by dominating the weak, rather he is honored by humbling himself and serving others. (Matthew 20:20-28)
   
    Naturalism says that there is no life after death and Materialism states that the existence of man is meaningless. Thus the life of a human being has no intrinsic value whatsoever.
   
    God says that every life is precious to Him. So much so that He was willing to lay down his own life to save mankind from destruction and to offer eternal life to everyone willing to turn to Him and be saved. (John 3:16-21, Romans 5:6-11, Ezekiel 33:11, 2 Peter 3:9)

    Given the choice, which philosophy would you rather live by? Or better yet: which philosophy is better for society as a whole?

    One final point I wish to make, is that whichever philosophy you choose—Naturalism, Materialism, or Theism—you are ultimately left with the same basic conclusion in regards to the origin of the universe.

    According to modern science, the material universe came into existence approximately 13.8 billion years ago in an event commonly referred to as the "Big Bang." Before this time nothing in the material universe existed. There was no space, time, or matter, as the entire universe existed as a singularity. Since there was no nature, there were no laws of nature. Not only that, the laws of science itself—which are approximations of natural laws as observed by mankind—do not exist in a singularity.
    Thus, according to modern science, before the material universe existed there was an immaterial, infinite nothing that existed beyond the realm of empirical evidence. It was this mindless, yet infinite, nothing that somehow gave birth to an immeasurably complex and orderly universe capable of supporting precisely the sort of life capable of understanding both the universe and the mathematically quantifiable laws that govern it.
    I hope the reader here can clearly see that the only significant difference between the genesis of Naturalism and Materialism and the Genesis of the Bible is that the Bible attributes the creation of the universe to an infinite, personal God. God—like the "infinite nothing" of Naturalism—existed before space, time, and matter and is not bound by the laws of nature. As such God also exists beyond the realm of empirical observation. However, unlike the mindless processes of Naturalism, God designed the material universe and created life with His purpose in mind.

    Simply stated, both the dominant philosophies of science and Theism agree that an immaterial, non-spacial, eternally preexistent First Cause existed before the origin of the material universe.
 
    In conclusion, while it is true that the Theory of Evolution is by definition a scientific fact, this in no way implies that the philosophical claims of Naturalism and Reductionist Materialism are a proven fact. Rather naturalistic evolution, as it is presented today, is little more than an inference placed upon material facts and is therefore subject to interpretation by means of the preeminent philosophy of whomever is observing said facts. This is why a Creationist or Theistic Evolutionist can observe the same material evidence as a Naturalist and arrive at wildly different conclusions.
    The creation-evolution debate, therefore, is not so much an argument between science and religion as it is a debate between conflicting philosophies and worldviews.
    In consideration of this fact, two questions we should all be asking are: do anti-religious philosophies like Naturalism and Materialism really have any place in the realm of education when religious philosophies are forcibly excluded? And, if so: what price will our children and grandchildren pay if these philosophies continue to spread as they are unchecked?

See Also:


The Nature of Truth

Science and the Bible: Darwin vs. Galileo