Here’s a bold statement: Science often leaves us hanging when it comes to answering the most profound question of all—why things are the way they are. Sure, it excels at explaining how things work, but the deeper 'why' behind it all? That’s where things get murky. Let me take you back to the 1960s, when school libraries were filled with the How and Why Wonder book series. These science-focused titles promised to unravel the mysteries of dinosaurs, stars, and more. But did they truly deliver on the 'why'? Not quite. They, like much of science, focused heavily on the 'how.'
And this is the part most people miss: Scientists often dodge the 'why' question altogether. When asked why a fig falls from a tree (yes, Newton saw a fig, not an apple!), we typically respond with 'gravity.' But here’s the catch: gravity is just a name for the phenomenon of objects falling. Saying 'gravity' is like saying, 'A fig falls because a fig falls.' It’s a circular answer that doesn’t truly explain the underlying reason.
Even when we dive into Newton’s laws or Einstein’s general relativity, we’re still describing how gravity works, not why it exists in the first place. The same goes for other scientific principles—thermodynamics, Snell’s law, electromagnetism—they all tell us how things behave but stop short of revealing why they behave that way. But here’s where it gets controversial: Is science even equipped to answer the 'why'? Or are we asking too much of it?
Science operates on assumptions—like the existence of matter, energy, and time—and builds from there. But these assumptions don’t address the deeper 'why.' For instance, why does gravity follow the inverse square law? A naturalist might say it’s because the universe has three spatial dimensions. Fair enough, but that just pushes the question back: Why three dimensions and not two or four? Here’s a thought-provoking question: Could it be that the universe is finely tuned by design, rather than mere chance?
This is where philosophy and theology step in. The assumption of naturalism—that only the natural world exists—excludes the possibility of a designer. But for those who believe in God, the 'why' becomes clearer. Gravity’s inverse square law, for example, allows for stable orbits, which are essential for life on Earth. Could this be a coincidence, or is it evidence of a purposeful Creator?
As creation scientists, we start with God’s Word as our foundation. We see design and purpose in the natural world because we expect it to be there. The universe doesn’t just make life possible—it declares God’s glory, as Psalm 19:1 reminds us. But here’s the kicker: While science can reveal God’s power and creativity, it can’t tell us about His holiness, righteousness, or the path to salvation. For that, we need the Bible—the ultimate book of 'how' and 'why.'
So, the next time you ask a scientist about the world, don’t just settle for the 'how.' Dig deeper. And here’s a question to ponder: If science can’t fully answer the 'why,' does that leave room for something—or Someone—beyond the natural world? Let’s discuss in the comments!
