Should science point men to God, or be used to reinforce their unbelief? It has been said that 17^th century scientists limited themselves to the how without interest in the why. The early scientists had no problem with the why because they began with the existence of a personal God that had created the universe. Since their authority was the personal God who had spoken in the Bible, they had no problem with the metaphysical questions of our existence and the question of how do we know truth. Their interest in the Bible came out of their view that the same God who had created the universe had spoken truth to His image-bearers in the Bible.[Francis Shaeffer, How Should We Then Live? ]

Here is the classic statement by Newton that distinguishes him and the early scientists that contributed to the scientific revolution. “Gravity explains the motion of planets,” Newton wrote, “but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.” His understanding of natural laws like gravity that were discoverable by the scientific method was that they originated from the creator as the ordinary means by which God exercised His sovereign control over the physical universe. Modern scientists completely miss the question of why.

The Problem of Regularity in nature:

“There is something about nature that is much more striking and inexplicable than its design. All scientific, inductive reasoning is based on the assumption of the regularity (the laws) of nature, that water will boil tomorrow under the identical conditions of today. The method of induction requires generalizing from observed cases to all cases of the same kind. Without inductive reasoning we couldn't learn from experience, we couldn't use language, we couldn't rely on our memories.

“Most people find that normal and untroubling. But not philosophers! David Hume and Bertrand Russell, as good secular men, were troubled by the fact that we haven't got the slightest idea of why nature-regularity is happening now, and moreover we haven't the slightest rational justification for assuming it will continue tomorrow. If someone would say, 'Well the future has always been like the past in the past', Hume and Russell reply that you are assuming the very thing you are trying to establish. To put it another way, science cannot prove the continued regularity of nature, it can only take it on faith.

“There have been many scholars in the last decades who have argued that modern science arose in its most sustained form out of Christian civilization because of its belief in an all-powerful, personal God who created and sustains an orderly universe. As a proof for the existence of God, the regularity of nature is escapable. You can always say, 'We don't know why things are as they are. As a clue for God, however it is helpful.” [Tim Keller The Reason for God]

Consider Hawking's belief that the universe created itself. In his new book, The Grand Design, Hawking faces the problem of the origin of consciousness. Hawking ends up using himself as the inadequate authority. He has no basis in metaphysics for his science. Hawking begins with an inadequate basis for metaphysics and then tries to use his science to answer the questions of metaphysics. Presupposition is used as conclusion. Here is his great departure from Newton and the early scientists. Inductive reasoning is the basis of the scientific method. So if modern science has no answer for the regularity of nature, and they don't, then they have no basis for formulating natural law which is based on the validity of the scientific method. Timothy Keller identifies this problem in his book, The Reason for God, as the fatal contradiction inherent in evolutionary theory.

The fatal contradiction:

“Despite fierce debates within the field, evolutionary theorists all agree that our capacity to believe in God is hardwired into our physiology because it was directly or indirectly associated with traits that helped our ancestors adapt to their environment...I don't believe evolutionary theorists realize the full implications of this crucial insight. Evolution can only be trusted to give us cognitive faculties that help us live on, not to provide ones that give us an accurate and true picture of the world around us...if we can't trust our belief-forming faculties to tell us the truth about God, why should we trust them to tell us the truth about anything, including evolutionary science?”

Hawking and those like him reject the ultimate authority of God and rely instead on the authority of finite men. This leads inevitably to the denial of God and to confusion. How can we ever hope to explain the existence of personal beings with longings for love, beauty, dignity? The material universe can never give rise through natural processes to the personal, which can only be explained by the existence of a personal creator/god. Real science points men toward God, false science suppresses the knowledge of God. “Although organic life could have just happened without a Creator, does it make sense to live as if that infinitely remote chance is true?” [Keller] The science of men like Stephen Hawking seeks to answer the question of metaphysics but can never do so. Modern scientists are forced to become bad philosophers.