Five
men roll a massive stone to
seal Jesus' Tomb - AD - The Bible
Continues
This question is from someone who clearly does
not understand the limits of science or the scientific method. So
let me start with a comparison to demonstrate why science can
neither prove nor disprove miracles. Asking if science has proved
miracles are not real is like asking if your bathroom scale has
showed how much your pet [cat, dog, whatever - insert here] loves
you. It should be readily apparent why your bathroom scale, which
measures physical weight cannot measure a non-physical quantity like
love, particularly in a creature that is not even human. So there is
no way for it to determine if your pet is even capable of "love."
Careful - behavior is not love. Even if your pet exhibits certain
behaviors that is not proof of love, and even if it were, it (love) is
still not a quantity that your scale could measure.
To be clear and at the risk of being
pedantic, your bathroom scale measures
items in the physical realm, namely the force of gravity acting on a
mass placed upon it. Your scale gives a reading of the force acting
on the scale due to the force of gravity. Love is, of course, not a
physical object or quantity. Therefore your scale cannot give a reading for it
regardless of what creature it might exist in, or what behaviors it
is exhibiting.
The Scientific Method
Similarly for science with regards to
miracles. Science uses the
scientific method to gain knowledge. As this graphic from my
article, Evolution: Not Science, Pseudoscience
illustrates the scientific method requires observations be made.
From the data of those observations testable hypotheses are derived.
If neither observations nor hypotheses can be made, the item is not
withing the realm of science.
This limitation of science is apparent in
the following quote from astrophysicist Alex
Filippenko from and episode of "The Universe":
"Ultimately the point is, if there is no
way to scientifically test a hypothesis through experiments and
observations it's not truly a scientific hypothesis. And so
since the question of the ultimate origin
and the ultimate creator is fundamentally an untestable
question, it's really not part of science."[1]
Rudolfo Llinas Professor Neuroscience &
Chairman, Dept of Physiology and Neuroscience, NYU School of
Medicine[2] makes the same point below about the inability of science to test
that which cannot be observed. Clearly science is unable to do
anything with miracles - whether it be to confirm or disprove them
since the scientific method cannot be applied to the miracle itself.
Yet miracles can still be recognized by their effect.
"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You
hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where
it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
(John 3:8)
Jesus gives very practical advice here on
how to recognize a miracle. People "born of the Spirit" are people
who have been born again (John 3.3) of God. Being born again is of
course a miracle God does that saves people which cannot directly be
observed. But, as you can tell the wind from the effects of its
blowing, you can tell people who have been born again by their
behavior - which conforms itself to be obedient to God as John
points out multiple times in his first epistle (1 Jn 1.7,
2.2-6, 3.2).
This method of recognizing a miracle from
its effects is of course useful for other miracles. The entire
Christian faith is based on the fact of the resurrection of Jesus of
Nazareth. The resurrection itself was not witnessed, but its effects
- an empty tomb, and a living Jesus viewed by not only the apostles
(1 Cor 15.5), but hundreds of
people (1 Cor 15.6) after his death by crucifixion, is why
Christianity exists today.
So science has no power to disprove
miracles. But one thing modern technology - the product of science -
can do is make it much easier to find reports of miracles. For
instance reports of cancers mysteriously disappearing like
this account.
Right here and now we use technology born of
science to share the
recognizable effects of the resurrection of Jesus. One of the best
ways to understand the miracle of the resurrection is to ask a simple question: Who
moved the stone?
Jesus was buried in a tomb whose entrance
was covered by a massive stone that required a number of men to move
it. (To get an idea of the size of the massive stone, see the
picture above.) If Jesus were dead, who moved the stone in front of
the tomb, which was
guarded by a number of soldiers?
Not the dead man in the tomb.
Not the Jews, they wanted Jesus dead.
(Matt 27.22-23)
Not the Romans, the Roman governor
Pilate authorized the execution, and was looking forward to the
peace his death would bring. (Jn 19.16)
Not the disciples - they were hiding
behind closed doors for fear of the Jews. (John 20.19)
Not the guards, it was death for the
guards to loose the person they were charged with guarding.
(Acts 12.19)
Yet the massive stone was rolled back
allowing the world to see the tomb was empty. But how? Below are
scenes from AD - The Bible Continues which both demonstrates
the problem, and the solution.
First the problem:
After the resurrection and the tomb is empty, Caiaphas the high
priest, to whom the guards reported (Matt 28.11) in an effort to
find out how the guards allowed the tomb to be emptied, questions
the soldiers guarding the tomb, and asked how many were there to move the stone?
He is appalled at the answer which is physically impossible.
(Reference the picture above.)
Next, the solution:
The Bible reveals how the stone was actually moved
(Matt 28.2) -
an angel from God moved it so it could be plainly seen that the tomb
was empty. Below is a dramatization from AD the Bible Continues.
So in short, science has no power to
disprove miracles. What it can do however, is verify the results of
miracles, and thus confirm the miracle itself. It can also eliminate
physical causes leaving a miracle as the best answer to the
question. The question in this case being, who moved the stone?
