In Genesis, God conquers the waters of chaos. He establishes order in the midst of disorder. He thoughtfully plans, builds, and organizes. God spoke and His words transformed the universe into an orderly physical manifestation of His personal thoughts. We are surrounded by God speak. His words are reassuring. We feel comfortable in this world because we are surrounded by the rhetorical flourish of One who seems to be in charge. It is for this reason that our daily walk feels more like a tour through a museum or factory than a perilous stroll through a Halloween fun house.
When a scientist enters his or her lab they expect to discover order. Every day they anticipate a conversation with Mother Nature because they know her to be a witty raconteur. She is so interesting that they feel compelled to write her biography. They begin their literary research by accumulating facts about her life. It doesn’t take long before they recognize that she is a very complex woman worthy of a multi-volume tome. Intimidated by the cosmic complexity of her life they decide to concentrate on just one specific chapter of her story. They then take the data and formulate a hypothesis about how this one particular aspect of her life fits into her larger narrative. They then consult her other scientific biographers to see if their findings are consistent with what they know about her life. If their story holds narrative water it becomes another volume in her natural history biography.
If scientists are Mother Nature’s biographers, then it implies that she has a story to tell. Could it be a story already written in the words God spoke long ago? If this is true, then science assumes an incredibly important role in our lives. They become the translators of divine discourse for the masses.
Incredibly, many scientists attribute her nuanced life to random genetic mistakes adjudicated in the court of natural selection. The problem with this scenario is that it assumes the defendant speaks only gibberish, and the only criterion the jury considers important is a body count. The time tested maxim of “reasonable doubt” cannot be applied when reason is replaced by random in this kangaroo court.
Thankfully, most scientists actually enter a courthouse where order is maintained. Where any hypothesis must present a well thought out case to the jury of reason. The jurors have been instructed to ask themselves, “Is the data significant? Is there reason to believe that the hypothesis under question is actually consistent with the facts of the case? A verdict of “theory” only requires a majority vote. However, to become actual “law,” the decision must be unanimous. The precedent has been set by the court case of Gravity versus the human race. The unanimous verdict in this landmark decision made it the standard of scientific case law.
Chaotic randomness has already been tried and found guilty of cosmic disinterest. Atheists, fearful that this verdict might actually implicate God as the orderly creator of the universe, try and rehabilitate randoms tarnished reputation by telling us it is really just misunderstood and if given enough time will repent and create something worth investigating. Afraid of a God of consequence, they deconstruct the divine architecture, but find that they need a hard hat to protect them from the pieces of Truth falling from the rafters of their rickety worldview. In typical human fashion, they deconstruct God’s world only to find that once they put it back together they are left with quite a few unused pieces. Pieces they dismissed as unimportant until they saw their human edifice crash to the ground as it encountered its first turbulent life breeze.
