Is Science Returning to Mysticism?

Mysticism can take many forms in science. It can be god-of-the-gaps,
or it can be refusal to consider the possibility of immaterial causes

 

by Leonard Brand, PhD

There is an old cartoon that has been republished multiple times. It shows a gentleman who has written on a blackboard a series of chemical steps, and one of the middle steps says “and then a miracle occurs.” An observer suggests that there needs to be some more details added in that one crucial step.

God of the Gaps

In previous centuries, explanations for events in the natural world commonly resorted to mystical explanations for things that could not be explained within the scientific knowledge of the time. We call this the god of the gaps – gaps in our knowledge had to be filled by a miracle. As advances in scientific knowledge filled those gaps we could explain many more things without resort to mysticism. These advances led to much more effective and coherent science, with evidence-based physical explanations for so many more phenomena in physiology, cosmology, and other fields. It seemed, to many scientists, that this left behind the need for mysticism, and steps that required “a miracle” to occur. This resulted in a growing confidence, and growing incentive for scientific research, seeking to expand the domain of things we can explain by the laws of chemistry and physics. Whatever we individually think about miracles, that move to evidence-based explanations was undeniably a critically important step for the human search for knowledge. But did it eliminate miracles?

Chemists moved on from the old phlogiston theory and recognized the role of oxygen and oxidation and developed a new paradigm for chemistry. Thanks to the success of chemists in their laboratories, now, I don’t know of any chemist who ponders whether he or she can trust their experiment, or whether God might be tinkering with their chemicals. Experience over the last couple of centuries has convinced us there isn’t any god who tinkers with the daily operations of nature, such as our chemical experiments. If there is a God, he leaves such things for us to figure out. The accumulating evidence seems to indicate that in the chemical reactions we can observe there are no mystical chemical forces that could betray us.

Laws of Nature

Research successes by physicists gave us confidence that the physical forces in nature also follow precise patterns. We can calculate the forces and directions of movement that will land a capsule on the moon, and astronauts have been willing to bet their lives that these equations can be trusted. Science is indeed a powerful process for learning how nature functions.

If a chemist wishes to know what will happen if nitrogen and glycerine are mixed together, they will not rely on speculation to answer the question. They might begin with some guesses, but they will not be satisfied with those alone; they will do the experiment. They know they can look to experiments to provide answers, and will be satisfied only when such answers are in hand. We have left speculation and mystical answers far behind.

Or have we?

Not all science fields are equal in their access to clear, experimentally verifiable answers. In some cases the subject is just very complex and thus slow to yield its secrets. In the 1950s the nature of DNA and its role became clearer. That was 70 years ago, but after many awesome discoveries we still don’t really understand the genetic system. That is not a criticism of the scientific method or of geneticists, but just a humble recognition of the amazing sophistication of the mechanism that is needed to make something alive. There is still no mysticism needed here, but patient persistence in the search for understanding.

As we look much farther back, at studies that began long before DNA, the challenges grow. Over 180 years have passed since Darwin’s attempt to understand how life began and how it changes. During this time science has seen the discovery that living cells are incredibly complex structures, that germs (microbes) are real and cause human disease and death, that cells function because of a myriad of awesome little biomolecular machines, and the discovery of how we can even introduce human genes into plants. We have come so far, and yet our questions about the beginning of life have not been answered.

What is wrong? Where do we stand in this search? Some eminent scientists may tell us that “we just need confidence in the search and answers will come. We need to be creative enough to find our way to answers that recognize there is still no need for mysticism or miracles.” Other, equally eminent scientists tell us that the origin of life is still a mystery, and we are unrealistic to suggest we know anything about it. These suggestions at times go farther and even imply that how macroevolution can work is also a mystery, and we don’t understand the molecular genetics behind it at all.

What is the reality in this great puzzle? Those who doubt that we know anything about the origin of life cannot be branded as religious fanatics. They range from ID advocates or creationists to other scientists who have no interest in either of those topics. They argue that we know enough now to recognize that our evidence does not seem to be compatible with the origin of life by known principles of chemistry or physics. In other words they are not hanging on to a “god of the gaps” mentality, but the opposite. They claim that the increase of knowledge about life has brought us face to face with the impossibility that life could arise by the laws of nature alone, as we understand them.

Laws vs Concepts

Before you reject the intelligence of these doubters, consider a simple analogy. The laws of nature can be put to use to “magically” open a garage door on command. But no matter how we approach it, the laws of chemistry and physics cannot make a garage door. A garage door is the physical expression of an intellectual concept. Some will argue that the same applies to a living organism. If that is so, what does it tell us?

What are the possible answers to these challenges? One approach is that “we know that life was not created,” so the paragraphs above are asking the wrong question. That is one intellectual approach, but how do we “know” that? To many of us pat answers are not satisfying, in either direction. Are we willing to confront the difficult questions, without arbitrarily rejecting answers we may not like?

What if our preferred explanations are not true? Are we willing to risk that possibility and look for an honest answer? Only if we include the whole range of possible hypotheses, are we likely to really test them. If the answer does not come out as expected, we can try the experiment again or try a different experiment. If it persistently does not come out “right,” according to our expectations, we eventually must make a choice.

Methodological Naturalism of the Gaps

There is growing evidence that appears to say that life cannot arise without intelligent input, and some of the evidence is looking very compelling. One could respond by arguing that the appropriate approach is to still keep on trying to explain it without intelligent design (ID), as this is the only scientifically acceptable approach. After all, we may just have difficulty accomplishing such an awesomely challenging task.

However, what if it becomes more and more clear that this is not just a difficult task; what if there is compelling evidence that the answer that is preferred from a scientific perspective, has been refuted? What if, as the evidence accumulates, the refutation of our cherished scientific hopes becomes more and more compelling? It could become evident that this situation is best described by that cartoon that we began with. Perhaps we are indeed following a logical trail that includes a step that can only be described as the insertion of something mystical – even a miracle.

Materialism: the New Mysticism?

If this is where we are in origin-of-life research, as it appears to a growing contingent of scientists, it appears that we have come full circle. The lack of evidence, in past centuries, led to inserting a mystical explanation in our story. Then the accumulation of evidence pushed these mystical elements out of science. Now we are on the way down the other side of that hill, and continued growth of evidence is requiring a segment of scientists to again descend into what can only be described as mystical explanations – life beginning by naturalistic processes that defy the scientific data. This time it is happening not because of lack of evidence, but because there is too much evidence that is incompatible with the desired non-ID explanation.

Is it better to maintain a cherished philosophy, like the philosophy of materialism, or to admit the obvious, and just say we may not like it, but don’t have an answer for how life could begin without a miracle? Is it OK to just say we don’t know (and may never know) how life began? Of course, the other option is to recognize that science is giving us growing evidence that life is a miracle; it could not begin without a genuine miracle. Genuine divine miracles are not the same as the ancient mysticism, because the existence of God provides an explanation for the miracle of creation. God perhaps could even explain, at least partially, how He does creation, but it is a miracle that goes beyond human science, and reminds us that the universe is bigger than what we can comprehend: bigger than what science can demonstrate within our human limitations. I suggest that those in science who reject this explanation are unwittingly descending back into another type of hopeless mysticism.

---

Dr Leonard Brand is Professor of Biology and Paleontology in the Department of Earth and Biological Sciences, at Loma Linda University. He received his PhD at Cornell University in 1970 and has been on the LLU faculty since then. He has taught courses in paleontology, vertebrate biology, and philosophy of science. His research focuses mostly on the processes of fossilization and the geological factors that influence preservation of fossils. He has published over 45 scientific research papers, and numerous articles in church publications. He has published seven books, which have been translated into one or more other languages. He has received a Zapara Award for Distinguished Teaching, a best student paper award at national meetings, a Distinguished Service Award and a Lifetime Service Award from LLU. His strongest long-term interest has been developing a Bible-centered approach to the integration of faith and science. He has a wife and two grown children, who have endured many of his research trips.