David Watts
Materials, the Millennium and the Mind of God (Editorial)

"Dental Materials", 16(1), January 2000, iii-iv.

The dawn of the Y2K millennium has arrived! The prospect brings challenges to
us, both personally and professionally. As members of a scientific Academy, we
must appraise where we are heading, our philosophical basis and the values and
motivations with which we must mentor others [1] and encourage them to join us.
We cannot address all the issues right now. But we shall briefly focus on some
critical links with the anniversary that humanity is implicitly celebrating: the
2000th birthday of Jesus Christ. 

When Napoleon allegedly asked the mathematical physicist Pierre Simon Laplace
how God fitted into his (mechanistic) scheme of the cosmos , the latter
replied: "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" [2]. This outlook is
understandable within the one level of a reductionist mind-set, for indeed God 
does not function merely as deus ex machina, such as the sole immediate cause of
(eg) planetary angular momentum - as even Isaac Newton had suggested. But today,
against Laplace, developments especially within physical science itself, such as
the anthropic principle [3], chaos and complexity theories, impress upon us the
necessity of multiple, complementary levels of explanation. That is to say,
holism is fashionable. Exclusive reductionisms (eg: man is nothing but a
machine ) are suspect. Allied to this is the fact that, as we examine and
explain systems at higher levels of analysis, then emergent properties become
apparent. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. As the Hungarian
scientist-philosopher Michael Polanyi expressed it: "Life transcends physics and
chemistry" [4, 5]. This trend raises the question of the uppermost level of
analysis and explanation. 

When we come to our subject of Dental Biomaterials, we already differentiate
between various levels of analysis, such as: molecular, mesoscale,
phenomenological, cellular and clinical levels. The clinician regularly flips
mind-set between addressing the whole patient, the oral cavity and the
mechanistic reasons for biomaterial failure. The existence of these multiple
study levels, each of which is significant in its own terms, can and does lead
to some territorial conflicts. Which, if any, are the more ultimate, important
and deserving of funding? 

Faced with these questions about the focus and essence of scientific
explanation, it is time to consider our historical roots. These include the
intellectual richness of the Biblical (or Judeo-Christian, and cognate)
understanding of God's relationship to the world. Who is God? He is not less
than Anselm's famous 11th -century definition: "God is that than which nothing
greater can be thought" [6]. But does God exist? Entailed in this question is
the whole issue of whether our lives, including our scientific endeavours and
achievements, are ultimately significant and meaningful. Only a transcendent,
all powerful, beneficent and purposive Creator can adequately underpin such an
outlook. 

Modern science operates with key presuppositions that are as axiomatic as those
of its Grand Theories, such as Quantum Mechanics [7]. The top Axiom is that:
there is an explanation of everything. If anything exists for which there is no
explanation, physical science would virtually break down. The inexplicable, the
irrational, the totally random, puts an end to science. The same happens if one
thinks there are many competing gods, or perhaps a god who is not concerned with
elegance or rational structure. 

Isaac Newton remarked that his search for simple underlying laws of nature was
prompted by the belief that a wise Creator would have designed the universe to
function on such principles [8]. This means that the whole of space-time, from
beginning to end, must depend in every detail on the conscious and purposive act
of God. The alternative, non- theistic, origins-hypothesis of 'quantum
fluctuations' inherently fails to justify its requisite belief that this
universe is bound of necessity to be realised sometime. This returns us to the
anti-science hypothesis that it does exist just by chance; that is, for no
reason at all, and without any possible explanation [9]. 

For theists, however, God is the one and only ultimately necessary being. If
there are necessary mathematical equations, existing even before this universe
comes into being, the obvious place for them to exist is in the mind of God, the
supreme cosmic intellect. It is God who can freely select a universe from all
the available possibilities, and so God's creative choice can explain how a
space-time universe comes from a set of ideas, mathematical or otherwise, in the
eternal mind of God. 

Belief in the intelligibility of nature thus strongly suggests the existence of
a creative mind, of vast wisdom and power, able to construct the cosmos in
accordance with rational laws [9]. It is no accident that modern, western 
science really began with the clear realisation in the High Middle Ages that the
Christian God was a rational creator, not an arbitrary agent who interferes in
unpredictable ways every now and then. If one believes in such a Creator, one
will be able to proceed on the assumption that our minds may discover the basic
structures of nature, if they work on principles of true reason, seeking some
rational explanation for the occurrence of every event. However, if God is not
constrained by the world to make it in any particular way, then its secrets
cannot be discovered by even rational contemplation or speculation alone, but
only by a foundation of observation and experiment. Thus, if the world were not
rational, science would not be possible: if the world were not contingent (i.e.
selected out of a set of other possibilities), science would not be necessary. 

Explanations in science thus usually function by showing how complex and often
seemingly chaotic processes are the result of the operation of general laws, on
simpler elements. It is a very remarkable and unexpected fact about the universe
that all its ordered complexity results from a cumulative construction out of
simpler entities; for example, the manifold diversity of chemical compounds and
materials from an alphabet of elements. What is remarkable is that there
should be such a relatively simple structure which gives rise, through a
cumulative and ordered organisation, to a level of complexity rich enough to
generate such things as consciousness and free action. If we suppose that there
is a God who creates a universe in order that conscious life should come to
exist, then it is much more likely that this universe will exist than most other
possible, abortive, universes. 

As human beings are created in the image of God, and called to shape their lives
in the likeness of God, among the greatest values in human existence are also
those of free creativity and the recognition of the intrinsic worth of the
individual. It is an important task of professional societies, such as the
Academy of Dental Materials, to nurture such qualities as creativity, community,
pastoral care and scholarly integrity. These should equilibrate our attitudes to
and relationships with our colleagues, whether our research emphasis is in basic
or applied science. As scientists we must also nurture a holistic understanding
of human nature if we are to attract the bright minds of a rising generation
[10], disenchanted with materialist reductionism. Again we remember that a major
rationale for our research is the health and welfare of our fellow men and women
[11]. As we reach this notable Y2K anniversary, and enter the unknown new
millennium, we can do so confident in the inherent worth of our task, through
the intense involvement of the Creator with humanity, individually and
collectively. 

David Watts 


1. Marshall SJ. The IADR: Mentor for Dental Research. J Dent Res 1999; 78:1384-1385.

2. Russell CA. Cross-currents: interactions between science and faith. Leicester: IVP, 1985: p91.

3. Carr BJ, Rees MJ. The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world. Nature 1979; 278: 605-612.

4. Polanyi M. Life transcending physics and chemistry. Chemistry and Engineering News. 1967; 21: 54-66. 

5. Polanyi M. Life's irreducible structure. Science 1968; 160: 1308- 1312. 

6. Anselm. Proslogion. Vol. 2. (Trans: MJ Charlesworth), Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame University Press, 1979.

7. Toraldo di Francia G. The investigation of the physical world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981: p270-284.

8. Newton I. Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Amsterdam, 1714. 

9. Ward K. God, Chance and Necessity. Oxford: Oneworld, 1996.

10. Bayne S, C. The New Scientists, and the New Science. J Dent Res 1999; 78:1386-1387.

11. Collins F. The Human Genome Project: Tool of atheistic reductionism or embodiment of the Christian mandate to heal? Science and Christian Belief 1999; 11: 99-111.

Reprinted from the January 2000 issue [16(1)] of the international research journal 
Dental Materials, published by Elsevier Science, Oxford. 
Editor-in-Chief Professor David Watts FInstP, FRSC The University of Manchester
Dental School, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester M15 6FH, UK 
TEL:+44 (0)161 275 6749 
Email: David.Watts@man.ac.uk

Powrót do DZIAŁU