The following are chapter synopses and short quotes from the fourth section of Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity? This fourth section is entitled: “The Argument from Design”
Chapter 11:
D’Souza argues that the best of modern astronomy (including the Big Bang Theory) is powerful evidence for the God of the Bible, and powerful evidence against atheism.
(This is a topic I am extremely interested in–and I appreciated D’Souza’s comments.)
“In a stunning confirmation of the book of Genesis, modern scientists have discovered that the universe was created in a primordial explosion of energy and light. Not only did the universe have a beginning in space and time, but the origin of the universe was also a beginning for space and time. Space and time did not exist prior to the universe. If you accept that everything that has had a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the term, a miracle. Its creator is known to be a spiritual, eternal being of creativity and power beyond all conceivable limits. Mind, not matter, came at the beginning. With the help of science and logic, all this can be rationally demonstrated.”
Chapter 12:
D’Souza argues from modern science that man has a special place in the universe–a position that is entirely consistent with Christian belief.
“It’s hard to avoid the question: if man is so central to God’s purposes in nature, why do we live in such a marginal speck of real estate in such a big, indifferent universe?…It turns out that the vast size and great age of our universe are not coincidental. They are the indispensable conditions for the existence of life on earth….The entire universe with all its laws appears to be a conspiracy to produce, well, us. Physicists call this incredible finding the anthropic principle….The Copernican narrative has been reversed and man has been restored to his ancient pedestal as the favored son, and perhaps even the raison d’etre, of creation.”
Chapter 13:
D’Souza argues that Christianity and evolution are not incompatible, and that atheists who claim that evolution does away with the need for a God go beyond the limits of the science. (For the record, I find D’Souza’s initial argument weak and his second compelling. D’Souza is convinced that macroevolution is scientifically supported; I am not. Furthermore, D’Souza fails to address the theological argument for special creation of man and the necessity for a true first Adam. On the other hand, I believe D’Souza is right that, even if Christians were to concede on the point of macroevolution, atheism has yet to give a compelling answer for the origin of life, consciousness, and human rationality and morality.)
“It should be clear from all this that the problem is not with evolution. The problem is with Darwinism. Evolution is a scientific theory, Darwinism is a metaphysical stance and a political ideology. In fact, Darwinism is the atheist spin imposed on the theory of evolution.”
Chapter 14:
D’Souza argues that while science is procedurally atheistic, it does not in any way preclude the existence of God–and that today’s militant atheists are incorrect in thinking that science is the only means by which the world can be understood.
“The adversaries of religion…frequently conflate procedural atheism with philosophical atheism. They pretend that because God cannot be discovered through science, God cannot be discovered at all….[A particular atheist that D’Souza quotes] assumes without evidence that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge, and that it gives us true and full access to reality. Are these assumptions valid? …If you were to ask a scientist, ‘why is this water boiling?’ he or she would answer in terms of molecules and temperatures. But there is a second explanation: the water is boiling because I want to have a cup of tea. this second explanation is a perfectly valid description of reality, yet it is ignored or avoided by the scientific account…Science is incapable of answering questions about the nature or purpose of reality.”