On page 10 of his book Good Question Good Answer, Dhammika claims, “Buddhism… is certainly (sic) more scientific than any other religion.”

Yet it is interesting that many of the patriarchs of science were Christian: British physicist Sir Isaac Newton (father of Calculus – he loved the Bible more than physics), German astronomer Johannes Kepler, French biologist Louis Pasteur (who made great advances in health while arguing against evolution), American aviators Orville and Wilbur Wright (who changed transportation forever), and the list goes on and on.

I understand many reasons why Buddhism prides itself as a “religion of reason,” but if Buddhism is the “most scientific religion,” why has it not produced any pioneer of science? Dhammika wants to bolster his persuasion by putting science on his side. The trouble with basing your religion on science is that science is changing all the time and you had better know your science!

I studied both advance chemistry and advance biology, earning the top marks in both classes. That doesn’t make me an expert; one may have a PhD in science and still not have a science job. But I am well versed in “evolutionary thinking” - which is what I think Dhammika considers science. He seems to be unaware that there is an intelligent debate going on as a growing body of qualified scientists question the premises of evolution. This is increasingly in the secular news. It does not seem that Dhamikka has scientific arguments for and against evolution. To paraphrase Ray Comfort, I can lead Dhammika to scientific evidence but I cannot make him think, because he knows too little of science and seems too blinded by his anti-Christian bias.

For open-minded people, I ask you to consider three pieces of evidence I encountered while studying evolution:

1) Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics or Entropy. Except for crystals, everything in the universe (plumbing, paint jobs, people) tends to move from a state of order to disorder; evolution requires the exact opposite to occur - and to occur frequently. However, matter does not organize itself without intelligent input (CDs, DVDs, cars, buildings never organize themselves; all require intelligence) and there has never been one observation of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is a fairy tale for grown ups.

2) Evolution contradicts the Law of Information - i.e. there can be no information without an intelligence source of information (see Dr. Werner Gitt, German Information Scientist). Not one single genetic mutation has been proven to add information to the genome. All known mutations (e.g. super-bug mutations) and natural selection (e.g. population shifts towards light or dark colour, big beak or small beak) involves a loss of pre-existing information. While Creationists refute evolution, all Creationists believe in natural selection as it merely selects pre-existing information. It does not create new information. Yet massive amounts of new information are required to make new species. There has not been one observable instance of new information being added to the genome, a major problem for evolutionists. This fact has not been denied even by Richard Dawkins. (See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712)

Where did the original information for life come from? Evolutionists have no answer. Creationists have a logical answer: since information can only come from intelligence, the information for life must come from God - the supreme Source of Intelligence and the original Source of Life. The Creationist explanation is not only scientifically sound, it is consistent with a basic observation: only Life begets life.

3) Evolutionists have a difficult time explaining why only left-handed amino acids are found in the building blocks of life. In nature, there is an equal amount of right-handed and left-handed amino acids. But in life, there are only left-handed. If life occurred by random chance, we should see an equal proportion (50-50) of right and left-handed amino acids. The Law of Probability precludes life from arising by chance on this one factor alone, and there are many other equally compelling factors.

Dhammika hasn’t differentiated between historical “science” and operative science. Historical “science” (evolution) is a re-telling of past events; of course, none of the scientists were there to witness nor re-create the events. (I as a Christian believe in the God who was there from the beginning, and this God gives His eyewitness account of the beginning in the Book of Genesis.) Evolution must be distinguished from operative science, which can test ideas by repeatable experiments and help us invent technologies that improve our lives.

Accident, random chance, universal energy, and Big Bang explain nothing. Have you ever seen an explosion create order? What was there to explode in the beginning? Nobody knows. It’s simply irrational. Creation by an Intelligent Designer remains the most convincing explanation of why we are here.

Continue to Part 3

© 2009 Steve Cioccolanti
All rights reserved. This article may be cut and pasted unabridged on your website to spread the Word, or you may simply link back to this website. Thank you.