Religion and Science
5. Religion and Science
~ 75 ~
traced the event back to its primary cause, the cause
which ‘knew’ that the chick required some hard
instrument to break through the shell and,
therefore, in exactly twenty-one days, compelled a
hard substance to appear on the beak in the form of
a horn and to fall off after having discharged its
function?
‘How does the shell break?’ was the question that
faced man previously. Now, in the light of recent
observations, instead of an answer, we have another
question: ‘How does the horn develop?’ In the
context of perceived phenomena, there is no
difference in the nature of these two questions. At
the most, questions of the type that lead us from
one link to another in the chain of cause and effect
demand an extension of the observation of facts, if
they are to be answered at all. On this basis, they do
not elicit any valid explanation.
The discoveries held by the atheists to be an
explanation of nature and, as such, an alternative to
God, can just as easily be thought of as being the
way nature works. We can, quite rationally, say that
God implements his will through these laws, only
