Where to begin, oh where to begin!
First off, you aren’t sticking to the title of your post, you seem to be adding religion to science, not science to religion.
Science in religion would be asking things like “How much energy is released during ascension”, or “what is the mechanism of reversal of biological death in the case of Lazarus”, or more to the point, “what is the mechanism of converting river water into a good pinotage without a fermentation process”.
Get the picture?
Next up, you are misrepresenting science quite grossly.
We don’t go from “inexplicable phenomenon” to “metaphysical and supernatural explanation” in science. We propose why a certain mechanism would necessarily explain a phenomenon, then we seek verification, then we seek predictions made by the proposed model, and then we seek a necessary mode of falsification.(1)
By that time there are often rival explanations and alternative models vying for acceptance, and we then use Occams razor (2) to trim away the more complex in favour of the more simple. We do this because a more parsimonious explanation is easier to refute by means of falsification than a more complex one.
So it is not likely to go from “inexplicable” to “metaphysical” unless one has exhausted all other avenues of likelihood.
You have basically formed the foundation of an “argument from design” (3) stating effectively that such an outcome is so unlikely to have occurred by random events that it must necessarily imply intelligent design.
Lets look at the probability first.
In certain lotto games lightweight numbered balls are floated around on airstreams before finally a full precision is selected and the resultant sequence is given as the winning number. Is this random?
The probability of any given sequence or “outcome” is given beforehand as say 1:250,000,000 for arguments sake. What was the probability of the winning number after it won?
100% is what it was.
Well it is 100% because we assume that the balls movements were the result of collisions, imperfections, airflow, spin, gravity, and the like, and that if we were able to exactly duplicate the circumstances, we would get exactly the same outcome.
We say this because of some basic concerns in science, we assume that there are no truly random events, we assume that all effects had causes, and that there really is an objectively true reality out there which our senses report on as best they can. We further assume that there are regularities in the way the cosmos functions and that these can be described by what we call principals, laws, and constants, etc.
Are these laws and constants necessarily right?
Well we simply don’t know, in fact we suspect pretty much that they are at best only reasonably accurate approximations.
We hope that if we are wrong, that further evidence will show us this.
We may be wrong, but we have chosen to let what we call “internal evidence” guide us.
And here lies the rub, science holds all things, even these, as tentative and conditional, even the laws are held conditionally on no evidence coming to light which contradicts them.
What you are proposing is that we take one property of a system or thing, namely order or regularity and assume that it implies design.
The problem is that you would have an empty syllogism unless you can show why a shared property means that two things have the same cause. This has been tried many times before by all kinds of folks (3) and it has up to now always resolved to either a bald assertion, or a tautology or circular argument.
This isn’t how we “do” science though, and hence it has no place in science. To add religion to science would mean that we assume that things can be random, and that we assume that some given principal is true regardless of what evidence contradicts it.
Can you imagine if you proposed that the reason an OR gate in a circuit failed was because it was a mystery of Gods will rather than (a) the chip blew, or (b) the output was pulled down, or © the power was unstable. How could you proceed if you considered that it was simply Gods will or something metaphysical or supernatural?
Your proposal would completely unravel science and make it something quite unlike science, and perhaps a return to regarding “authority” and “purpose” as metrics rather than “properties” and “internal evidence” (4)
It is indeed remarkable that things came together in the way they did, but it only shows the same effect as the lotto example You are looking at the end result where the final outcome of a sequence is thought to be known. At this point the bubble of probability collapses and the outcome is thought to be the only way things could have happened while obeying what we conceive as being the regular laws of the cosmos.
- Popper, Karl http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p7.htm#popp
- Occam, William of http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/o.htm#ockh
- Paley Bishop, Various, http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/t.htm#telg
- see Hacking, Ian “Emergence of Probability” 1984 ISBN: 0521318033