However, despite the fact that God is directly and formally excluded from the scientific paradigm, it does not mean that science itself is unaffected by the philosophical question of whether God exists because the question of God’s existence has a direct bearing on how we calibrate science in relation to its utility of explaining aspects of the strange reality in which we all find ourselves. If God doesn’t exist, then in principle there is no limit to the efficacy of science to resolve reality in its entirety. However, if God does exist then this sets an upper limit to the questions that science is able to address. For example, if God exists then it forever means that the ultimate origins of the universe cannot be explained just in terms of the universe itself because clearly the origin of the universe is based on the actions of a non-observable entity that preceded it and which is outside the scope of scientific enquiry.

I conclude this video by surmising that the entanglement of atheism with science as it is currently practiced is harming the progress of the science because it is limiting the possible ideas that can be explored in relation to say unifying quantum mechanics with the general theory of relativity because it is demanding that such a theory must also contain an explanation of how our universe could spontaneously arise on its own terms rather than allowing for the idea that this single question might be outside of science’s explanatory scope because the origin of the universe is bound up inside the creative act of a deity. I suggest that just as science had to be disentangled from theism in the middle ages, perhaps now it is time to disentangle science from atheism because neither belief system is appropriate within the scientific paradigm.

The two videos I cite in this video are Brian Cox’s Human Universe and Emergence Theory presented by Marion Kerr.

In this lecture, I show how the second law of thermodynamics offers an important key to unlocking a viable explanation of how the apparent order, design and rationality of our universe could spontaneously arise without an external intelligence. This may come as a surprise to many theists who often like to evoke the second law of thermodynamics as a reason for why they believe the universe must be the product of an outside intelligence. The argument that allows the second law of thermodynamics to be used as an ally for atheism, hinges on the idea that there is no discontinuity between order and disorder but rather order is just exceptionally more unlikely to arise by chance. Because order is mapped onto a probability scale that is infinite, one can use mathematics that deals with infinities to create what I call in The Wormwood Deceptions a mathematical hallucination. This hallucination absolutely prevents all inference of intelligent design when considering an object, no matter how different the entity is from non-designed objects we observe in our universe.

While the second law of thermodynamics appears to be powerful ally in removing the boundary between what is and isn’t the product of an intelligence, in the middle part of this lecture I consider four possible configurations of the universe that could exist in relation to the second law of thermodynamics. Out of these four, our universe is the most consistent with the hypothesis that the universe is a product of an external intelligence.

The final part of this lecture is distinctly Christian in that it demonstrates how the Biblical claim of Roman 1:20 is supported by our modern scientific understanding of the universe making atheism a more difficult proposition than it was before the modern scientific revolution: the exact opposite of what is often expounded by celebrity atheists.

In this lecture, we begin to see this process in practice by taking a journey through some of the major scientific disciplines; starting at the level of the immune system and reducing it into more fundamental component parts which will take us through the disciplines of biochemistry, chemistry and physics. It will become obvious as we consider the details of each subject, that our universe is both rationally ordered and immensely complex. For example, the molecular machinery that enables a cell to function is far more sophisticated than any nano-technology we have currently developed. If we observed such technology outside of the context of life itself, we would conclude that it was a product of an intelligence.

Yet if we start with the hypothesis that the universe self-actualised without any input from an external intelligence, then it becomes necessary to develop a theory which explains where the rationality and apparent design (Richard Dawkins coined the word “designoid” for this phenomenon) comes from.

While biologists have attempted to address this challenge by extending the explanatory scope of Darwinian evolution to include the the nano-technology of life itself, physicists are also faced with a similar challenge in explaining why our universe is so finely tuned to allow life to exist in the first place. In the final part of the lecture, we shall examine how physicists have attempted to explain the fine tuning challenge of the universe and why design and order do not naturally arise given the second law of thermodynamics.

Yes even science must begin with presuppositions which are in themselves not provable. Although for many, faith is a dirty word, even your most sceptical scientist is exercising faith in these 5 axioms when s/he goes about their scientific business.