William Haines Monday Lecture - Do science and religion need each other?

I said last week I finished basically going through all the principles, and so I'm going to look at some extra bits and pieces for the rest of the summer. This one here is about science and religion. Sometimes people think that science and religion have always been in conflict; sometimes people think they're in harmony. So, I'm going to look at this question of the relationship between science and religion and whether they need each other or not. The reality is that human beings ask questions. For example, you can imagine people living in houses, in computer games and television. They used to sit around the campfire and ask themselves, why does the sun rise and set? They would question how it does it, why it does it, and came up with all sorts of theories to explain the fact that the sun starts off on one side of the sky and ends up on the other side, disappearing and coming back again. It's a bit of a mystery if you don't know how it works. If you didn't have the kind of education we have today, people often asked about rain. They needed rain for the crops, so they would wonder when it was going to rain and sometimes ask why it isn't raining and how they could make it rain. People developed dances to try and think how they could control the natural world, as they wanted nature to do what they wanted it to do. These dances were a very primitive form of technology based upon a certain understanding of the way the world is.

Again, sometimes people ask, why is there a universe? Why do people suffer? Virgil, a Latin poet, said, 'Happy is he who gets to know the reason for things.' When we discover the answers to our questions, we experience happiness based on understanding. Traditionally, people have always tried to make sense of the world in which they live, and to help do this, religion, science, and philosophy developed to answer such questions. Originally, there weren't separate subjects like religion, science, and philosophy; these separate subjects have only developed very recently, in the last 150 or 200 years. A couple of hundred years ago, people didn't think, 'Oh, I'm a scientist,' or 'I'm a philosopher.' All these things were just integrated as people tried to make sense of the world. The first astronomers were priests. If you go along to Stonehenge, you can see that it was not only to do with trying to work on the calendar but also had a religious function. There was no separation between religion and science. Medicine was practiced by doctors who were also prophets and physicians. In some countries, you still have a shaman who is involved with medicine and herbal remedies but also serves as a guide.

Traditionally, people have always strived for an integrated explanation of things, and the usual relationship between what we now call science and religion has been one of cooperation and interaction. For example, Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest medieval schoolmen, tried to combine Christian theology with Aristotelian thought, which was the scientific way of looking at things inherited from the Greeks. He tried to synthesize these two together. The Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, and Jesuits are all different Catholic orders, and these were the scientific leaders. Many of these monks were very intelligent and interested in philosophy but also in science. The scientific leaders of the medieval world came from the monasteries of these Catholic orders. Scientists who weren't monks or members of religious orders were also supported by the Church. The Church recognized the value of science, and scientists were often Christians. Many of the great scientists have also been believers, like Galileo and Kepler. Galileo discovered various things and took up the heliocentric view of the solar system, arguing that the planets went around the sun. Kepler said that they didn't go around the sun in a circular orbit but in an elliptical shape. He came up with the laws of planetary motion and explained that each planet played a certain tune as it went around, creating a great musical symphony of the planets. Newton also discovered the laws of gravity and did a lot of work in calculus. He wrote large commentaries on the Bible and was very much interested in alchemy. He believed that his religious ideas would be the ones people would study in a couple of hundred years' time, while his scientific ideas would be seen as insignificant. Maxwell was a very religious person who discovered equations linking electromagnetism.

Some quotes illustrate this relationship. Galileo said, 'Mathematics is a language in which God has written the universe.' He believed that through mathematics, we could make sense of the natural world. Louis Pasteur, who discovered pasteurization, said, 'Science brings men nearer to God.' Jewel, who works in the sphere of physics and energy, stated that an acquaintance with the natural laws means no less than an acquaintance with the mind of God. This expresses the normal relationship between science and religion, between scientists and the understanding of God in the religious world. Sometimes, people will tell you that science and religion have always been in conflict, but that's not true; it's not the norm at all. So, what is science? Science is a human endeavour to discover the structure of the world and the laws that govern its workings. It's a spiritual adventure, an activity of the mind, spirit, and imagination, trying to make sense of these things and develop theories to explain what's going on.

Claude Bernard, a French physiologist, said, 'The joy of discovery is certainly the liveliest that the mind of man can ever feel.' Science is a spiritual activity, and it's also a communal enterprise. Scientists often work together, even if they work apart. They write papers and share their discoveries with other scientists, who review them and try to replicate those experiments. This idea of peer review is essential. What makes scientists tick? Einstein said, 'I want to know how God created this world.' Now, Einstein didn't believe in a personal God; his idea of God was not a Christian idea. However, that's what motivated him. A Nobel Prize winner, in civil science, said that science is an imaginative adventure of the mind seeking truth in a world of mystery. You get a sense of the mystery of the world in which we live and the effort to make sense of it. The scientific endeavour and scientific method involve scientists searching for patterns and laws to explain the hidden order underlying the natural world.

The world sometimes looks very chaotic, but scientists have this intuition that behind this apparent chaos, there's some sort of order. They try to discover the natural order that underpins the whole of reality. These laws and patterns might start with something unusual or puzzling, leading to the development of a hypothesis. For example, Newton apparently saw an apple falling and thought, 'That's interesting.' People have always noticed it, but he noticed it in a way that others hadn't. He developed a hypothesis, conducted experiments, accumulated evidence, and developed a theory. Good science tries to disprove theories; it's very easy to prove theories. Anyone can prove any theory by finding evidence to support it. But good scientists try to prove their theory wrong, and if they can't, they may say, 'Well, maybe it's right.' They use models to explain phenomena. For example, what model do scientists use to explain the atom? They often say it's like a miniature solar system, with the nucleus as the sun and electrons going around it like planets. This is how they teach it at school, but it's not really like that. In order to create a picture of what an atom is like, people say it's like a solar system, but it's not entirely accurate.

The very word 'split' is a metaphor to describe what they're doing. Scientists use models to convey an image or picture of what something is like to help convey understanding. I'm not sure if you're interested in all this, but it interests me, and that's why I'm talking about it. So, what is the status of scientific knowledge? One thing is that it's tentative and not certain. If you go to university or school and look in a textbook, people often check the front to see if it's the latest edition. If you were studying the laws of gravity and had a copy of a book that Newton wrote 300 years ago, you would want an updated version. Generally speaking, the only thing you can say about scientific knowledge is that what scientists believed 100 years ago has mostly been disproved or modified. Scientific truth is always tentative; it's not certain. When people study the Quran, written about 1,400 years ago, they want to have the original edition, which is a different kind of status compared to scientific textbooks.

All these theories are approximations to the truth; they describe the nature of reality but don't always fit together. For example, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and quantum theory are different theories that don't fit together yet. These scientific theories can't be proven; you can only fail to disprove them. What we know is much less than what we don't know. Whatever we know about the universe is only a tiny fraction of the knowledge that exists. Most things we just don't know. That's the whole purpose of education. When you leave school, do you think you should feel educated? The proper answer is that you should feel hungry for more knowledge. You should realize that you don't know anything. If you leave school thinking you know a lot, you've failed. You should leave school realizing that you know very little compared to what you ought to know. For example, I remember when I studied history. I did my history O Level, equivalent to GCSE. The exam covered English history from 55 BC to 1914. I realized that out of 50 questions, I could only answer five. I understood that this particular period of English history was what my teacher was interested in, and I realized that even though I had done well in history, I hardly knew anything.

I became aware that even though I didn't know anything about these other 45 questions in other parts of the country, there were other children sitting in the same exam who knew nothing about the five questions I could answer. However, there were five questions they could answer from a different period. I realised that my head is too small to get all this knowledge from 55 BC to 1940 into my head. All this knowledge has been parcelled up, and I studied this period, but in other parts of the country, other people were studying different periods. The whole of English history has been studied by someone around the country, so the whole of the knowledge has been transmitted. Part of knowledge has been transmitted from one generation to the next. That's why you meet people who study different subjects; you might meet someone on a train who studies something very different from what you studied at school.

Fifty years ago, Britain was a much more interesting country. People were much more educated because everybody studied something different. Then they brought in the National Curriculum, where everybody studies about Henry VII and his six wives, and Nazi Germany. That's all everybody studies, and as a result, the country is becoming more ignorant. Far less knowledge has been transmitted through the educational system today than was transmitted 30 years ago. What the government is doing in this country is depriving people of their inheritance. It is leading to the destruction of English identity, tradition, language, literature, and culture, which is not being transmitted from one generation to the next. This is why you see young English children painting themselves with red and white; they have this sort of empty nationalism because they are out of touch with English language, literature, history, and culture. They are just trying to discover it in the flag.

For example, the National Curriculum doesn't even include Alfred the Great. There is only one king in English history who is called 'the Great', and that is Alfred. You would think that in a curriculum focused on your nation's history, this would be something people would study, but he is not included. Consequently, children in school have no sense of what the origins of the English people or the English nation are. Talking solely about science, we should realise the limitations of science. Sometimes people say that science can answer all the questions, that if you have a scientific education, you can solve all the problems, and that we don't need to study history and religion. However, let's examine some questions.

Can a scientist answer the question of how atom bombs are made? Yes, scientists who design and create atom bombs can explain how they work. But should we make an atom bomb? That is not a scientific question; it is a moral question. How does a human organism function? Yes, that is a scientific question, and it can be explained in terms of the circulatory system and blood circulation. But what is the meaning of human existence? That is not a scientific question; you can read a book about human biology, but you won't find the answer there. It is a different kind of question that cannot be answered by scientists. Philosophers and religious people are interested in such questions. Is playing a CD of Coldplay enjoyable? That is not a scientific question; there is no scientific answer to that question.

Why are the laws of nature mathematical? That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical question. Why do the laws of nature exist? Again, that is a philosophical question. Religion is very similar to science in many ways. Just as science is a quest to make sense of the natural world, religion is a quest to understand life's mysteries and discover the true way of life. Religious questions include: Why do we exist? Why did God create me? Why did God create the universe? Why is there suffering? What is right and what is wrong? These are different kinds of questions. How should I live my life to encounter God? How should I live my life to experience true happiness? Religion is a spiritual adventure into the heart of God.

The methods of religion are different from those of science. Instead of using microscopes and test tubes, the experiments in religion are conducted through prayer and meditation. Through these practices, one can discover all sorts of things. Buddhism teaches about meditation and achieving enlightenment. When you are enlightened, you can penetrate into the depths of reality and understand it clearly. You have a clear mind and insight, allowing you to see things accurately instead of living in fog and confusion. Just as scientists use their instruments, through prayer and meditation, we can find answers to these questions. Religion is also a communal activity; people worship together in churches, and Muslims have their community practices. While there are hermits who sit alone, most religious practices involve communal worship.

Religious knowledge is based on experience and reason. People have experiences with God, and these revelations lead them to reflect on their encounters. This reflection is what theology is about; it is the study of experiences with God and life. At the heart of reality is mystery. God is ultimately mysterious; no matter what we think we know about God, it is always incomplete. God is beyond any human concept and language. Similarly, the natural world is a mystery, and scientists realise this as they try to understand it. They can never quite grasp it fully. Just as scientists use models to explain what an atom is like, religious people use metaphors to describe what God is like. For instance, saying 'God is a rock' is not literal but conveys a deeper meaning.

Science and religion are different. The goal of science is to understand the lawful relations among natural phenomena, while religion is a way of life within a larger framework of meaning. To say that science disproves religion is to misunderstand both. They are different subjects, different areas of discovery. Another way to look at the relationship between science and religion is through the lens of competence. For example, a little boy sees a kettle boiling and asks his big brother why it is boiling. The big brother gives a detailed scientific explanation involving gas and chemical reactions. Meanwhile, their mother simply says, 'It's tea time.' Both answers are correct; they just provide different types of explanations. Science focuses on the physical dimensions of reality, while religion explains the spiritual dimensions of why things are the way they are.

Freeman Dyson, a physicist, stated that science and religion are two windows through which people look to understand the universe and our existence. They are different ways of looking at reality, and neither is inherently correct or wrong. They are complementary perspectives. The more viewpoints you have on a problem, the better you can understand it. However, trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction. When either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible, it leads to dogmatism. Religious creationists, for example, believe the Earth was created in six literal days, while scientific materialists, like Richard Dawkins, claim that everything can be explained by evolution, dismissing the need for God. Both positions are equally dogmatic and insensitive.

Traditionally, there has not been a conflict between religion and science; they have worked together to make sense of reality. However, people often cite the Galileo affair as an example of conflict. During this affair, the Church rejected facts that conflicted with theology and tried to suppress scientific theories. Galileo argued that the Earth revolves around the Sun, while the Church, based on Aristotle's teachings, maintained that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system. The Church's position was politically motivated, as Galileo's ideas conflicted with established beliefs. This is an example of religious imperialism trying to suppress scientific theories. On the other hand, scientific imperialism, like Neo-Darwinism, claims that evolution disproves the existence of God. However, the existence or non-existence of God is not a scientific question; scientists cannot prove it either way.

To claim that a scientific theory disproves God's existence is misguided because this isn't a scientific question; it can't prove or disprove it. It's imperialistic, just as the question of whether the Sun goes around the Earth or the Earth goes around the Sun is not a religious question. It's a scientific question based on facts. So, what is the correct relationship between science and religion? We should turn to the Pope, as he articulated it well: science can purify religion from error and superstition, while religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Einstein famously said that science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind. They need each other and must cooperate. The Unification view seeks for humanity to overcome ignorance about both the spiritual dimension of reality and the natural world. A new truth must emerge that reconciles religion and science, resolving their problems through an integrated understanding.

This integrated understanding is essential. Science and values are intertwined; Einstein noted that science can ascertain what is but not what should be. Outside of its domain, value judgments remain necessary. He recognised the difference between scientific questions and moral, philosophical, or religious questions. These are different kinds of questions that complement each other. Religion and philosophy are necessary to provide an ethical framework for science and its applications, especially in contemporary issues like genetic engineering and environmental treatment.

Now, let's explore God and the origin of the universe. Many people wonder whether the universe has always existed. If it has, we do not need to explain its existence; it simply is. However, if the universe hasn't always existed, we can ask when it began, how it began, and why it exists. These scientific questions lead into philosophical and religious inquiries. The Jewish perspective, inherited by Christians and Muslims, holds that God created the universe out of nothing, meaning the universe had a beginning. This idea was developed by ancient thinkers around campfires, while Plato and the Greeks proposed that prime matter always existed, arguing that nothing can come from nothing.

For instance, when a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, we must ask whether the rabbit existed before the trick. The answer is yes; nothing can come from nothing. Aristotle, building on Plato's ideas, concluded that God is eternal and unchanging, and thus the world is also eternal and unchanging. This leads to the concept of ultimate matter, which has always existed, and ultimate spirit, which also has always existed. In contrast, the Jewish perspective asserts that God created the universe, while the Greek perspective suggests that the universe has always existed. This scientific perspective, rooted in Greek philosophy, dominated until the 1920s.

In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies are moving away from each other, leading to the conclusion that the universe must have had a beginning. This was a significant shock for the scientific community. The unwelcome aspect of this discovery was the implication that if the universe had a beginning, then the question arises: who created it? Many scientists had been trying to exclude God from their equations, focusing solely on empirical evidence. While they may have had personal beliefs, these were often not reflected in their scientific work.

In 1963, researchers at Bell Labs were tuning their radio telescope and discovered a background radiation that was consistent throughout the universe. This radiation suggested a common origin, interpreted as an echo of the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory posits that the universe began from an infinitely small, dense, and hot singularity approximately 13 to 15 billion years ago. As the universe expanded, it evolved from this initial state, leading to the formation of particles, gases, solar systems, and eventually human beings.

The Big Bang marks the beginning of time and space. Questions about what existed before the Big Bang are meaningless because time itself began with the Big Bang. Thus, there was no 'before' the Big Bang. Similarly, the question of who created God is also meaningless, as it stems from a misunderstanding of the concept of God. Just as a line has two ends, a circle has no beginning or end. If someone insists that everything must have a beginning and an end, it reveals their lack of understanding of the nature of a circle, just as questioning the creation of God indicates a misunderstanding of what God represents.

God is, by definition, eternal. God has no beginning and no end, and is beyond time and space. Therefore, to ask the question, 'Who created God?' suggests that God exists within time, which is not the case. The question itself is meaningless; it indicates a misunderstanding of what the term 'God' means. People often grapple with these concepts, and that's just the way it is.

Regarding the Big Bang, physicist Sten Haines stated that science can predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but it cannot predict how the universe should begin. For that, one must appeal to God. While we can predict that the universe has a beginning, we cannot predict its actual existence or the manner of its beginning. If we consider the Big Bang, one might imagine it as akin to placing a stick of dynamite under a building. The result would be chaotic, with debris scattered everywhere. However, the universe resulting from the Big Bang is not chaotic; it is a cosmos, exhibiting order, complexity, and extraordinary beauty.

Let's examine the initial conditions of the Big Bang, where physics and science come into play. The first notable aspect of the Big Bang is that it was smooth. In a typical explosion, debris is ragged and uneven, but the material from the Big Bang had a similar density and consistency. It was a very smooth beginning, devoid of clumps. If there had been clumps, turbulence would have formed black holes, resulting in a universe filled with black holes and nothing else. The chance of this smooth beginning occurring is one in 10 to the power of 10,123. To put this into perspective, you are more likely to win the lottery every single day of your life than for this to happen.

Additionally, there is the expansion problem. If the universe had recollapsed within a fraction of a second or expanded too quickly, galaxies would never have formed. Physicist RX Dicky calculated that a mere one part in a million decrease in speed when the Big Bang was one second old would have led to a recollapse before the temperature fell below 10,000 degrees. Conversely, a slight increase in speed would have prevented the formation of stars. The likelihood of these conditions aligning perfectly is incredibly low.

Some argue that perhaps the universe simply appeared, but this notion is flawed. There are only two chances: it either happens once and never returns, or it re-explodes. If it gets it wrong once, that's the end. The weak nuclear force, which controls proton fusion, must also be precisely calibrated. If it were slightly stronger, all matter would have become helium, and there would be no water. If it were slightly weaker, only helium would exist, preventing the formation of heavier elements necessary for life. Similarly, changes in electromagnetism and gravity would drastically affect star formation and the existence of life.

The laws of nature must be exactly as they are; otherwise, there would be no universe and no human life. Some suggest that this is merely a coincidence, while others propose the existence of multiple universes. The argument for multiple universes posits that if there are infinite universes, at least one must support life. However, this argument lacks evidence and is based on speculation. According to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is often the most likely. Why postulate imaginary universes when we can accept that there is only one universe until evidence suggests otherwise?

The idea of multiple universes originated from Soviet philosophers who sought to explain the implications of the Big Bang, which raised questions about the existence of God. An alternative explanation is that an intelligent Creator designed the initial conditions to support the development of complexity, life, and consciousness. In this view, God meticulously calculated the necessary parameters for the Big Bang, creating a universe capable of evolving complexity and consciousness.

This concept likens God to a cook who carefully prepares a recipe. Imagine being blindfolded in a kitchen, trying to bake a cake without knowing where the ingredients are or how to use the oven. The likelihood of producing an edible cake under such conditions is minimal. Similarly, the probability of the universe existing as it does is microscopic, suggesting that an intelligent being must have meticulously crafted the recipe for its creation.

Stephen Hawking's philosophy raises questions about the existence of an intelligent creator. He acknowledges that this is not a scientific question and that scientists cannot answer it. So, which is more believable: God or chance? Albert Einstein expressed a similar sentiment, stating that when he observes the cosmos, he cannot help but believe in a Divine hand behind it all. However, it is important to note that Einstein did not believe in a personal God; he recognised a mystery beyond our understanding.

Now, let's explore Unification thought and its perspective on this matter. According to Unification thought, the directional development of the universe was determined through the function of reason based on laws that existed within the inner mind of God even before creation. In other words, laws were prepared from the very beginning to realise a purpose. God, using reason based on these laws, envisioned a universe that could fulfil the purpose of creating conscious beings capable of having a relationship with Him.

Another way of understanding the Bible is to consider it in its context. For instance, if you read a piece of poetry and think it is not a good description of a flower, you are making a mistake because poetry is not meant to be literal. The meaning of a text often depends on its genre, and the Bible contains many metaphors and symbols. For example, when it says that God is a rock, it does not mean we should worship rocks. The Bible itself is a mixture of different genres; it includes myths, poetry, law, history, and more. Therefore, we must approach it with an understanding of these various forms.

A question often arises regarding the relationship between science and religion, as well as who wrote the Bible. The Bible was written by many different people. In the New Testament, there are four Gospels about the life of Jesus, each attributed to a different author, although they likely had several editors. The Old Testament, or Hebrew Bible, also consists of various books written by different individuals over time, with many parts transmitted orally before being written down. Consequently, we cannot definitively identify the original authors of many sections, as they were edited and re-edited throughout history.

Pope John Paul II articulated a traditional Christian understanding of the Bible, stating that it speaks to us about the origin of the universe and its makeup, not to provide a scientific treatise but to establish the correct relationships between humanity, God, and the universe. This perspective suggests that fundamentalist interpretations, which view the Bible as a scientific document, fall outside traditional Christian thought. For example, in Genesis, the word translated as 'day' in English actually means 'age' in Hebrew, which is a more ambiguous term. Thus, the biblical account does not necessarily contradict scientific understanding; it can be interpreted as describing a process that aligns with modern science.

When the Bible states, 'Let there be light,' it resonates with the scientific explanation of the universe's origin, such as the Big Bang theory. The subsequent verses describe the separation of waters, which can be interpreted through geological theories about the Earth's early atmosphere. As the Earth cooled, water evaporated, creating dense cloud cover. The biblical narrative continues with the emergence of land and plants, which aligns with scientific theories about the development of life on Earth. The idea that land appeared as the Earth cooled and shrank is similar to how bubbles form when squeezing a balloon.

The biblical account of creation describes the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. However, from a scientific perspective, the sun predates the Earth. This discrepancy highlights the imaginative nature of the biblical narrative, as it attempts to explain the universe's origins through a creative lens. The order of creation in Genesis bears a striking resemblance to the sequence proposed by modern science, with life emerging first in the seas before evolving onto land. This suggests that the biblical story can coexist with scientific understanding, despite some differences in details.

Regarding the literal interpretation of the Bible, it is important to consider context. Some individuals take verses out of context to support rigid views, such as the argument against women becoming bishops. This selective reading often ignores the broader message of the text. The question of how living creatures appeared can be approached from two perspectives: creationism, which posits that God created each species individually, and evolution, which suggests that species evolve from one another. Darwin's theory of evolution aligns with the idea that all living beings are interconnected through a process of change over time.

Darwin initially embraced traditional Christianity but lost faith as he encountered contradictions in the Bible during his scientific studies. He questioned how a benevolent God could create parasitic wasps that harm caterpillars, leading him to reconsider the nature of creation. This reflection on the complexities of life and the existence of suffering challenges simplistic interpretations of divine intention. Ultimately, the dialogue between science and religion continues to evolve, inviting deeper exploration of both perspectives.

Haines studied the natural world extensively, and his conclusion was that it was not necessary for God to create it in the way it exists. He questioned why God would design a world filled with suffering, such as the life of a caterpillar being made miserable by a wasp laying its eggs inside it. If God is all-powerful and designed every detail, why did He create a world with so much unnecessary suffering? This led Haines to doubt the traditional Christian understanding of God. He could not reconcile the idea of an all-good and almighty God with the suffering he observed in nature, including diseases like malaria caused by mosquitoes. Although he did not identify as an atheist, he became more agnostic, unable to accept the Christian doctrine of God while still believing in a higher power.

Darwin, too, grappled with these questions and ultimately argued in favour of evolution over the idea of separate creation. He posited that all living beings evolved from common ancestors rather than being created individually. This perspective did not negate the existence of God for Darwin; instead, he suggested that evolution could be the process through which God worked. Many Christian theologians of his time saw no contradiction between Darwin's ideas and Christian theology, viewing evolution as a means of divine creation.

One piece of evidence for evolution is homology, which refers to the common features present in different species due to shared ancestry. For instance, the five-fingered hand is found in humans, bats, and other animals, suggesting a common origin. This pattern raises questions about why all these species have five fingers if they were individually designed. The evolutionary argument posits that five fingers developed at some point in history, and all subsequent species descended from that common ancestor. This suggests that they are variations on a theme rather than separate designs tailored for specific purposes.

Another significant piece of evidence for evolution is the fact that all known life is based on DNA. Regardless of where you go on Earth, from the deepest ocean vents to the highest mountains, life forms share this common genetic material. The universality of DNA implies that all life is interconnected, which contradicts the idea of separate creation. If God had designed each species individually, one might expect a variety of foundational materials rather than a single, complex molecule like DNA serving as the basis for all life.

Some argue that the complexity of life suggests a designer, a viewpoint articulated by theologians like William Paley. He argued that if one were to find a watch on the ground, it would be reasonable to assume it was designed by an intelligent creator due to its complexity. In contrast, finding a rock would not elicit the same conclusion, as rocks are expected products of natural processes. However, Haines contends that the beauty and complexity of nature can arise from chance and natural processes rather than direct design. While God may have established the principles that allow for such complexity to develop, He did not design each individual element.

The question remains whether complexity can arise spontaneously without conscious design. Historically, many have believed that complexity indicates a designer, but modern science has shown that self-organising systems can produce order and complexity naturally. This concept is evident in various fields, including physics, biology, and economics. For example, the market is often perceived as chaotic, yet it exhibits a self-generated order that arises without a central designer. Similarly, language and other complex systems can develop organically, challenging the notion that complexity must be the result of intentional design.

There are rules of language, but language is not something which has been designed; it is a self-generated, self-organising system. It is really interesting, and I can't fully explain it; you actually have to see it. If you look at the human eye, for example, it is a classic example for both creationists and Darwinists. Some people argue that the human eye is so incredibly complex that it couldn't have come about by chance. They claim it must have been designed. However, in terms of biological theory and zoology, there are many different types of eyes that exist, ranging from a single spot to the incredibly complex human eye. An organism with a few cells may have developed light sensitivity, giving it an advantage over others that did not possess this trait. This ability to detect light could help it find food or avoid predators, illustrating how complexity can develop in a self-organised way.

Within the natural world today, there is a whole range of eyes, from simple light-sensitive cells to the incredibly complex human eye. For instance, an organism with a couple of light-sensitive cells may be better at spotting prey, allowing it to hunt effectively. Conversely, if prey develops a light-sensitive cell that can recognise predators, it is more likely to survive. This creates an evolutionary arms race, where advantageous modifications are selected for. It is quite possible for an evolutionary pathway, over 100,000 generations, to progress from a single light-sensitive cell to the human eye, with all the intermediate stages existing in the natural world. Sometimes, evolution can even go backwards; for example, some amphibians that became trapped underground lost their ability to see because it became redundant. This demonstrates how things can evolve and modify over relatively short periods.

The most significant argument against the idea of design is that if God designed things, He is not a very good designer. One could argue that the process of evolution is what God intended as a method of creation. In this sense, God created an incredible process. We will explore this further later. It is important to challenge the notion that God created human beings in a direct manner. For example, are there any poorly designed parts of the human body? Some might point to the appendix, but it actually has a function. Additionally, there are individuals who are blind but develop other parts of their brain to adapt. The whole idea of evolution is about adaptation; organisms that successfully adapt to their environment are the ones that survive, while those that do not may perish.

If we consider the human body, many people experience backache. This is because the lower back is not very strong; it was not designed to support the upper body. Before primates stood upright, they moved on all fours, and the lower back was not a weight-bearing structure. However, as humans evolved to stand upright, they retained a back that was suited for swinging through trees. This has resulted in weaknesses, such as the lower back being unable to adequately support the upper body unless one maintains fitness. Additionally, some people experience sciatic nerve pain due to the way a particular nerve runs down the leg. If it had taken a different route, it would not have been a problem. These issues raise questions about the argument for design: if God designed human beings, why are there such flaws? Either God is a poor designer, or we are the product of gradual modifications based on existing patterns.

Darwin advocated that evolution occurs through natural selection, which involves random variations. The question arises as to whether these variations are truly random. There are many differences between individuals, and some are better suited to their environments than others. The struggle for survival means that only a minority of offspring survive and reproduce, passing on advantageous adaptations to the next generation. While Darwinism does not answer all questions, the discoveries in zoology and biology since his time have confirmed his basic insights and expanded his theory. Darwinism remains a fruitful research programme, despite having many unsolved problems, just like every area of science.

For example, scientists are still investigating the source of variation and how speciation occurs. There are many unresolved issues, such as the lack of intermediaries in the fossil record and the origins of DNA. However, Darwinism is compatible with a belief in God, depending on one's understanding of God. In the 19th century, leading Christian thinkers in Great Britain and America generally accepted Darwinism and evolution, viewing it as compatible with Christianity rather than a threat. The fundamentalist movement, which emerged in America about a century ago, is a more recent phenomenon. This movement often interprets the Bible literally, which has led to some branches of the Unification Movement adopting anti-Darwinian views.

Reverend Charles Kingsley, a contemporary of Darwin, expressed that it is just as noble to believe that God created primal forms capable of self-development as it is to think that God required constant intervention to fill in the gaps. This perspective suggests that God created the universe in such a way that it would naturally develop into complexity, consciousness, and life. The traditional Jewish and Christian understanding posits that everything has both an internal and external dimension. Matter is not lifeless; it has an inherent direction towards greater complexity. This contrasts with the Greek view that matter is inert and requires external imposition of order. If we understand that matter has an inherent direction, we can see that there is order within chaos, rather than chaos needing to be imposed upon.

God's human sign or Prime Force is the basis of the forces of nature. God acts in and through natural processes, and the universal Prime Force directs all interactions towards unity. For example, without gravity, nothing would function. The universal Prime Force directs towards higher levels of complexity. This understanding aligns with traditional Jewish and Christian doctrine, which states that in God, we live and move and have our being. All forces are expressions of the universal Prime Force, and scientists are working to integrate the equations that describe these forces into a unified theory. This pursuit is akin to describing the universal Prime Force, which is the essence of God's being.

Prime Force allows us to live, move, and have our being within God. Without God, we would not exist. This interesting idea of give and take can be seen in the relationship between a subject and an object. For example, the relationship between mind and body in a subject initiates a connection with another being that also possesses Mind-Body Unity. Consider someone sitting and playing computer games all day long; when another person enters the room, they typically do not respond with excitement. However, when there is a Mind-Body dialogue, one reaches out to connect with others, forming relationships and interactions within families, which can then extend to communities. This process is bottom-up, as I will explain further.

The Universal Prime Force represents a vertical give-and-take action between subject and object, initiating relationships. The interactions occurring on a horizontal level lead to greater complexity. For instance, when there is give and take within a family, it is natural to seek friendships with other families, leading to gatherings like barbecues. This interaction among several families fosters a sense of community, which can then expand to include other communities, ultimately forming a society. This progression moves from the individual to the family, society, nation, and world, illustrating that world peace starts with individual Mind-Body Unity. The Universal Prime Force works to initiate interactions at increasingly complex levels.

The creation and unification of the universe is harmonious, encompassing myriad forms and countless types of give-and-take actions initiated by the Universal Prime Force. In other words, through this force, give-and-take actions are directed by a unifying purpose, generating the necessary existence and reproduction of all things, from the smallest to the largest. The ultimate goal of all give-and-take actions is to unite subject and object, allowing them to develop a higher and greater dimension. This is because everything has its Sang Kung, the Universal Prime Force, which God used to create the universe. Naturally, this leads to greater levels of complexity.

God anticipated that life would eventually appear somewhere in the universe, and that this life would possess consciousness. Human beings would emerge as temples in which He could dwell in His image and likeness. While God may not have known exactly what we would look like, He knew that beings capable of forming a relationship with Him would arise. I find it fascinating that wherever scientists look, they discover that life appears wherever conditions allow. The universe is teeming with life wherever it is possible, as everything is imbued with the Universal Prime Force. It is quite conceivable that life exists on other planets and in other parts of the universe, as this is how God designed it.

God did not simply create Earth with a specific plan in mind; rather, He enjoyed watching life emerge in various forms. This perspective is remarkable. I appreciate your patience as I navigated through these concepts. I apologise for speaking at length and for any disorganisation in my presentation. We started late, and I acknowledge that the discussion has been extensive. Next week, we will delve into governance, politics, and economics.