Let’s Go to Theology Class: Arguments for God’s Existence

The following is from Apologetics, my most recent class at Colorado Christian University in pursuit of my master’s degree in theological studies.

Written by Steven Barto, B.S., Psy.

This Week’s Question: Assuming we believe in God,

  • Why spend time studying arguments for God’s existence?
  • Why not just go with the belief and move on?
  • What benefit could there be in spending time thinking through this belief and analyzing the evidence?

defending the faith

This week’s discussion prompt made me think of the importance of apologetics. Clearly, every religion has its own liturgies, doctrines, rites, practices, worldview, and history. Unfortunately, this can complicate theological study. The question this week is Why spend time studying arguments for God’s existence? I believe such studies are especially critical for those who wish to engage in sharing and defending the gospel. If we’re not prepared before going out the door to share the Good News, it will be more difficult to withstand the wiles of the devil. Today’s New Atheists constantly attack Christianity on multiple levels. The standard question, What caused the universe? is answered with a generic remark: Something.

The Teleological Argument (or “design argument”) states that God’s existence is evidenced by order and design in nature. The Anthropic Principle falls under the category of teleological. Factors associated with this Principle are: (i) constant oxygen level at 21% of the atmosphere; (ii) critical atmospheric transparency that permits just the right amount of solar radiation to reach earth’s atmosphere; (iii) moon-earth gravitational interaction at the precise level needed to maintain appropriate tide cycles and orbital changes; (iv) carbon dioxide level at the exact amount to avoid runaway greenhouse gases and to sustain plants and trees (earth’s lungs); and (v) a constant level of gravity needed to sustain life on earth. Christian doctrine regarding the existence of God is based upon more than faith, but we must be prepared in this pluralist post-Christian society to present “evidence that demands a verdict.” Anthony Flew writes, “A discussion about God’s existence should start with the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie with the theists” (1). Challenge accepted!

The Cosmological Argument states that things in nature depend on some other thing for their existence; e.g., dependency on God, who exists necessarily and independently from the cosmos. Interestingly, Richard Dawkins is in good company (so to speak). He and Lucretius hold the belief that it is not necessary to suggest or assume the existence of God as fact, or as truth to formulate a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief as long as nature can be considered a self-explanatory entity (2). Hoover believes it’s difficult to believe in spontaneous creation of the universe given that the Second Law of Thermodynamics states “entropy is irreversible.” Our universe is admittedly expanding and will wind down at some unknown point in the future. Yet we often hear, “If God made the universe, who made God.” This is really an attack on the aseity of God—He exists in and of Himself, from Himself.

The Ontological Argument is a priori in nature—i.e., justifications, or arguments exist independently from experience. This is essentially the belief that God exists and has always existed independent of the presence of matter, time, energy, or empirical evidence. Anselm’s understanding of ontological proof of God’s existence is this: “If God is a being than which none greater [sic] can be thought and to exist in reality, and to exist in reality is greater than to exist in the understanding alone, then God must exist in reality, for if he existed in the understanding alone, he would not be a being than which non greater can be thought” (3) (italics mine). Anselm’s writing style is a bit cumbersome, but the depth of this conclusion is not lost.

I find all three arguments useful when doing evangelism or apologetics. Things in nature depend on God for their existence. This is the Cosmological Argument. I believe in the unadulterated existence of God absent physical proof. This is the Ontological Argument. There is none greater than God that can exist in reality. I also believe in universal (ontological) truth and morality. I do find teleology to be rather convincing and thoroughly amazing. I have a decent grasp on the theory of macro evolution and the many scientific holes in Darwin’s origin theory. (Actually, he provides no theory for the origin of matter, energy, or life.)

The mathematical probability regarding gravity, oxygen, carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases, moon-earth gravitational interaction, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, creation of matter and energy, and DNA (the information of biology) is mind-boggling. Genetics consists of a four-letter alphabet (A, C, G, T) that functions as “code” for every living thing in the same manner that there is a code (zeros and ones) for every computer. Laptops and the beings that use them both have a designer/coder.

Responses from Classmates

Steven,

I think you did a great job on this post, and you broke down the arguments very well. I enjoy the argument of Teleological because creation is always one of the most talked-about battles between Christians and atheists. I find it funny that people can believe all of these things just happened to work out perfectly for creation to exist, but they cannot believe God created it all. To me, it takes more faith to believe in the chance of evolution than it does to believe in a creator. In fact, I believe creation speaks to the fact that there is a Creator. I love the Psalmist who says, “The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship” (Psa. 19:1, NLT). I find it impossible to look up at the stars and think anything but a Creator took the time to make [it]. What do you think proves creation the most?

Justin

My Reply to Justin

Thanks for your comments. I see the proof of God’s existence everywhere. Regarding the arguments for Creation and the existence of God, I have a difficult time choosing one over the other. The Teleological Argument says we can prove God’s existence through observation of the natural world—this is God’s general revelation. Teleology includes the Anthropic Principle, which is very compelling. It speaks of the unfathomable accuracy of several critical constants in the universe: (i) the oxygen level on earth is constant at 21% of the atmosphere, any deviation being cataclysmic; (ii) the degree of atmospheric transparency is constant, allowing the precise amount of solar radiation to get through, any deviation and we’d either cook to death or freeze to death; (iii) the moon-earth gravitational interaction is constant, at a degree of pull that allows for regulated tide cycles and a flawless and constant rotational period which permits regular climatic cycles; (iv) the carbon-dioxide level on earth is constant, allowing for just the right level of CO2 or we’d experience a runaway greenhouse effect—too high and we’d be subjected to enormous humidity and temperature that would be lethal, and if too low photosynthesis would not operate properly; and (v) gravity is constant, permitting the proper “pull” that keeps things on earth from floating into the air (if not into space) or to be “crushed” under tremendous pressure. It is noteworthy that if the gravitational force were altered by 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and neither would we (4).

The odds concerning random formation of life on earth will also blow you away. Donald Page (Princeton University) has calculated the odds against random development of proper cellular form and operation needed for life to develop at 1 out of 10,000,000,000124 which is a number that is unimaginable. Further, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe determined the odds for random formation of a single enzyme from amino acids on earth’s surface as 1 in 1020.  They add, “The trouble is there are about two thousand enzymes and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only 1 in (1020)20,000 or 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup” (5).

I see tremendous value in the Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument. I love your question of what I think “proves creation the most.” The teleological school of thought says creation (the act and the end-product) can be proved by how precisely the universe is tuned. For it to be tuned at all, it must have a “tuner.” If these precise values imply design, then there must be a “designer.” I’ve answered a number of atheists and skeptics on my blog with these principles. I’ll say this: Before I brought out the “mathematical proof,” it seemed dialog with these skeptics was going nowhere.

I think the Ontological Argument is too rich in theology/philosophy to be the first arrow I’d pull out of my quiver. The Cosmological Argument is a great tool for preparing to do apologetics. Here’s my final thought on these “arguments” and “principles.” Each is quite valuable, but not every atheist or skeptic can go straight to these issues and come away believing. I think that’s because many of them are looking to not find the proof, so they look right past it. Again, though, whatever works. All we can do as Christians is plant a seed. God gives the increase. We must remember that not all soil has been prepared for the more “heady” arguments and principles of creation.

I hope this helps. Please look at the suggested reading list below.

Blessings!

Suggested Reading

The End of Reason, Ravi Zacharias
Foresight, Marcos Eberlin
Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe
Signature in the Cell, Stephen C. Meyer
Undeniable, Douglas Axe

Footnotes

(1) Anthony Flew, There is No God (New York: HarperOne), 2007.
(2) A.J. Hoover, “Arguments for the Existence of God,” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 348.
(3) Leslie Allan, “Plantinga’s Ontological Argument”. <http://www.rationalrealm.com/philosophy/metaphysics/plantinga-ontological-argument.html&gt;
(4) Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 102.
(5) Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickremasinghe in Ravi Zacharias, The End of Reason: A Response to New Atheists (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 35.

More on Scientism

scientism-written-over-brain.jpg

Written by Steven Barto, B.S., Psych.

Dan Egeler writes in the Forward to J.P. Moreland’s book Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology, “As the ideas that constitute scientism have become more pervasive in our culture, the Western world has turned increasingly secular and the centers of culture (the universities, the media and entertainment industry, the Supreme Court) have come increasingly to regard religion as a private superstition. It is no surprise, then, that when our children go to college, more and more of them are just giving up on Christianity.” It is no secret that much of the scientific community believes it is at odds with religion. In fact, scientists see themselves as the voice of reason. It is their intention—for the most part—to stem the tide of all this “irrational belief” in a divine creator or eternal being.

It can be argued that we might have been fooled into this pointless yin/yang fight between science (the physical) and metaphysical (the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter). How can someone believe in God and science at the same time? Science sees itself as the “great revealer” of reality, down to the very mathematical calculations about matter and energy. Belief in God is considered to be “old fashioned” or “backward,” if not outright elitist. Consider the words of Physics Nobel Prize winner Stephen Weinberg:

The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion. Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization” [1] (italics mine).

If science and God do not mix, why were over 60% of Nobel Laureates between 1901 and 2000 Christians? The history of modern science has many great Christian pioneers—Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday. Ben Shapiro wrote, “Jerusalem and Athens built science. The twin ideals of Judeo-Christian values and Greek natural law reasoning built human rights. They built prosperity, peace, and artistic beauty. Jerusalem and Athens built America, ended slavery, defeated the Nazis and the Communists, lifted billions from poverty, and gave billions spiritual purpose.” [2] Shapiro warns that atomistic individualism has a tendency to drift toward the self-justifying oppression of others. To me, atomistic means individualistic; society is comprised of a collection of self-interested and seemingly self-sufficient individuals swirling around one another like atoms. Christianity teaches us about society, neighborliness, love, mutual respect, fellowship, charity. It tells us no one is an island.

Science or Philosophy?

If I told you that the hard sciences alone have all intellectual authority to give us knowledge of reality, and that everything else—especially theology, philosophy and ethics—is based upon private notions, blind faith, or culture, what would you say? More importantly, would you think such a conclusion is “scientific?” Better yet, is it a “provable” conclusion? This is the basic tenet of scientism. It is not science, but a worldview. Specifically, it’s a theory of epistemology (the branch of philosophy that studies what knowledge is and how we obtain it). Not only does scientism not provide a “scientific view,” it is actually a school of philosophy. Scientism is so pervasive today that it distorts reality and pollutes the field of science.

scientism-montage-e1577116119462.jpg

This worldview believes religions cannot be proven intellectually. They come from within the individual (a private belief) and are typically handed down from our parents as part of our culture. I have no problem with the second part of that statement. Indeed, many beliefs are passed down through generations. This does not mean those beliefs are untrue. To say they are, especially in a biology class in public schools, is to manipulate religious conviction. Why is is appropriate for high school science teachers to promote the theory of evolution as though it were a “proven fact,” while at the same time leaving intelligent design out of the story of life? To do so is to stack the deck.

Moreover, the theory of evolution is rooted solely in “historical” science— using knowledge that is already currently known to tell the story of what happened in the past. Scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. Some proponents of naturalism and evolution claim Christian apologists are stretching the concept that historical science is not verifiable; that it is not proper “science” relative to events occurring eons ago. In fact, it is said that creationists fail to appreciate the history of science and science itself.

Historical science is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data. That sounds straightforward to me. Admittedly, however, science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology. Arguably, there are experimental sciences and historical sciences. By their very definition, they use different methodologies. Naturalists and evolutionists believe both branches of science can properly track causality. This is where I lose faith in their explanation. If historical science can track causality regarding events alleged to have taken place during as varied a time as tens-of-thousands, hundreds-of-thousands, or millions of years ago, I’d like an explanation. How can we trust in scientific “theory” that cannot be verified?

The scientific method has five basic steps, plus plus one feedback step:

  1. Make an observation.
  2. Ask a question.
  3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
  4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
  5. Test the prediction.
  6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Recognizing that we all approach the world with presuppositions, biases, misconceptions, and (at times) faulty data, it is critical to admit that these conditions shape the way we see and interpret the empirical world. In this regard, historical science cannot be considered on equal footing with operational science. Because no one was there to witness the past—with the exception of God—we must interpret scientific claims regarding origin on a set of starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence; they just interpret it within a different framework or worldview. Evolution denies the role of God (as intelligent designer) and creation accepts His eyewitness account (related in the Bible) as the foundation for arriving at a correct understanding of the universe. Admittedly, this is based on an act of faith. Scientism and evolution, however, are also based on faith. They are philosophical viewpoints in the same manner as theism and intelligent design. Some, in fact, regard science as their religion.

J.P. Moreland on Scientism

j-p-moreland-photo-02.jpg

J.P. Moreland cites an example in Scientism and Secularism regarding the policy of public schools in the State of California in 1989, “Science Framework,” which offered guidance to teachers about how to address students who expressed reservations about the theory of biological macroevolution:

“At time some students may insist that certain conclusions of science cannot be true because of certain religious or philosophical beliefs they hold… It is appropriate for the teacher to express in this regard, ‘I understand that you may have personal reservations about accepting this scientific evidence, but it is scientific knowledge about which there is no reasonable doubt among scientists in their field, and it is my responsibility to teach it because it is part of our common intellectual heritage'” (italics mine)[3].

The above “policy statement” is actually a picture of knowledge it assumes to be true: knowledge about what is real can only be determined  by hard science, and empirical knowledge derived from hard science is the only knowledge deserving of the backing of public institutions. Science uses terms like “conclusions,” “evidence,” “no reasonable doubt,” and “intellectual heritage” to elevate itself as the only method for understanding reality. Scientism denigrates terms like “beliefs,” “faith,” and “personal reservations” as non-empirical and inappropriate, unfounded opinions. Indeed, this is not a level playing field!

It is critical to realize that scientism is a philosophy or belief system and not science. It is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Scientism is not the identification of something as scientific or unscientific but the belief that “scientific” is far more valuable than “non-scientific” or worse, that “non-scientific” has negligible value. Moreover, this conclusion is making a huge assumption: there is no scientific proof of intelligent design or a supreme being. To decide this to be true is to close one’s mind to any possibility that science can prove metaphysical claims. Granted, whenever science establishes a prior metaphysical or ephemeral claim as fact, it moves from the category of metaphysical to the physical or scientific category. Unfortunately, the New Atheists label those who believe in God as irrational, deluded, backward, or closed-minded. And they feel justified in doing so because they believe there are no truths that can be known apart from appropriately certified scientific claims. First, that is not uncategorically true. Second, it dogmatically decides no such evidence will ever be found.

The Damage Done

Battle Between Science and Christianity

Because scientism is virtually everywhere in our postmodern pluralist society, it is considered to be “normal” if not essential. Increasingly, Christians are considered to be out of touch with reality. Stuck in the past. Scientism wants everyone to agree that religion is a byproduct of fear, doubt, and the quest for meaning, and that science has moved mankind further along the continuum of information. The only “stuff” that matters today is data. Scientism puts Christian claims on the outside looking in—beyond what people generally consider reasonable and rational. Accordingly, one of the disturbing side-effects of scientism is making the ridicule of Christianity more common and acceptable. It states that any belief in an invisible God or an intelligent designer is not just untrue, but unworthy of any rational consideration.

Galileo.jpg

The rise of modern science in the seventeenth century was founded on testing and rejecting authoritarian claims of truth. Whether Scripture, tradition, or Aristotle, authority must not stand in the face of logic and evidence. We see proof of this with the story of Galileo, who trusted the truths of mathematics and personal observation despite the fact that his conclusions contradicted the doctrine of the church or the authority of the ancients. Indeed, our universe is heliocentric (earth and the other planets revolve around the sun) not geocentric. Earth is not the center of the universe. Over the centuries, the scientific method led to better comprehension of nature and life. Technology transformed our world beyond the scope of mere fantasy.

Unfortunately, science has been erroneously identified as an “authority” we tend to bow to without question. Research necessarily leads to provisional conclusions, yet these conclusions are typically taught (if not worshiped) as the only definitive basis for the physical world. Science enjoys a prestige that often obscures how tentative its claims are in reality. This has led to professional advancement, political advantage, and ideological “certainty” which is intrinsically bound to the acceptance of new ideas or alleged truths. Countless individuals suspend any doubt or skepticism simply because science has “proven” something. This is a dangerous conclusion that is based on the worldview of scientism.

In Science We Trust.jpg

More critically, science has encroached improperly on the world of human thought, philosophy, religion, and truth. Scientists have decided to apply the physical sciences to the behavior and motivations of people, their social and cultural practices, and their theological beliefs. They insist that everything in the universe (the physical and the metaphysical) can be understood through the precepts of natural laws; able to be predicted and analyzed by Newtonian physics. Carl Sagan famously said, “The cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.” Frankly, this viewpoint is both illogical and based solely on conjecture. It is a personal belief and a scientific fact.

Critical issues concerning human behavior and motivation cannot be scientifically defined. We are decidedly different from animals or other natural phenomena. We have a mind, consciousness, self-awareness and self-determination, and (most importantly) the freedom to choose how we will act. None of these attributes has been explained solely through science. Psychology and sociology are considered “soft” sciences for this very reason. Give a man a situation and he will decide for himself in that situation how to react to it. In fact, most of our problems today are caused not so much by the situation itself as they are based on how we respond to that situation. Response has power to create a pseudoreality. We “see” things through the eyes of gender, race, culture, nature/nurture, personality, religion, and political viewpoint.

Carl Sagan Photo

Consider how these variables impact science. Sagan said, “Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.” Of course, he believed this was an accurate statement. It was his intention to impose this conclusion of everyone. Moreover, a statement such as this has no basis in scientific fact, theory, or empirical evidence. It is Sagan’s feeble attempt to see inside the soul of man. The very fact that this was his worldview meant he was not likely to “see” any evidence to the contrary. This is precisely what makes scientism dangerous and damaging.

Worldview is the framework of our most basic beliefs. It shapes our view of and for the world, and is the basis of our decisions and actions. Unfortunately, it is built in part on our preconceptions, presuppositions, biases, prejudices, and culture. James Sire said our propositions are actually deeply-rooted commitments of the heart. Quoting Naugle, Sire states, “Theory and practice are a product of the will, not the intellect; of the heart, not the head.” [4] Entwistle provides an important insight into worldview, stating, “What we see depends, to some degree, on what we expect and are predisposed to see.” [5] 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Since time began, man has been bothered by metaphysical questions to which there seem to be no simple answers. Ravi Zacharias (a leading Christian apologist) says there are four great questions regarding life: (1) What is the origin of life?; (2) What is the meaning of life?; (3) Where does morality come from?; and (4) What is our ultimate destiny after death? From a philosophical and theological viewpoint, there are no universal responses to these questions. Scientice would like us to believe there are. Science believes it hold the only answer to the first two questions; they relegate the last two answers to philosophy or theology. It’s obvious that worldviews are as divergent as mankind itself. What makes this issue more complex is that worldviews are not limited to matters of culture or science, nor do they reside solely in the intellect. Rather, they are typically of the heart, not the head. A person’s worldview serves as the foundation or infrastructure for their values, which determine their behavior. Accordingly, it is crucial that Christianity labors to establish the ontological (underlying) truth of all things. This can only be accomplished by first grasping the meanings contained in the Scriptures, and then defending the very reason for our faith (1 Pet. 3:15).

I will admit, the same thing can be said about religion or faith. Theology is not science, but it is not anti-science. That’s the great lie evolutionists and most biologists tell everyone: Religion cannot be proven; faith is a private, subjective belief in something unseen; science clearly establishes the basis for all reality—indeed, all truth. Hold on a sec! That last one is not science; it is scientism. We’ve established that scientism is not science, but a worldview. It is a philosophical opinion about science that is not based on logic or evidence. Further, I agree that my belief in Almighty God (theism) and the life, teachings, ministry and atoning death of Jesus (Christianity) is at least to some degree based on faith.

Faith is not at issue. Mankind is not just a cluster of “meat” or “carbon-based” individuals wandering through the universe—material conglomerations of matter changing with every moment. We are individuals with responsibilities, morals, beliefs, and the ability to reason and question. What’s at issue is scientism’s claim that science is the only source of truth and reality, which is a philosophical claim and not an empirical scientific fact. Period. Moreover, to deny reason would be to end all human interaction, destroy our politics and sociology, and tear down what it means to be human at the root. It would be to decide one of two things: either the four great questions of Ravi Zacharias are not relevant to life itself or, perhaps worse, that science is the only vehicle by which we can definitively answer these questions.

Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (NIV). Faith has always been the hallmark of Christianity. The “principle” tenet of Christianity is planted in the heart of the believer through the Holy Spirit. Faith, in this manner, is a firm persuasion and expectation that everything the Bible says about God and Christ is true. Moreover, the believer has decided to trust that Scripture provides a true and accurate account of the origin of all things.

Is it just me, or does Darwinism make the same “faith” claim, but does so as if it were an ontological, underlying, clearly-proven fact?

***

I want to start encouraging more feedback so we can open a dialog. Presently, in order to leave a comment you need to scroll back to the header and click on LEAVE A COMMENT, but I’m in the process of figuring out how to move the COMMENT bar to the end of each post. Thanks for reading. God bless.

Footnotes

[1] Stephen Wineberg, New Science, Issue No. 2578, November 18, 2006.

[2] Ben Shapiro, The Right Side of History (New York: HarperCollins, 2019), p. xxiv-xxv.

[3] J.P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), p. 28.

[4] James Sire, Naming the elephant: Worldview as a concept, 2nd ed (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2015), p. 35.

[5] Davide Entwistle, Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity, 3rd ed (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015), p. 93.

The Basis for True Science

WHAT IS SCIENCE? How do we determine if it leads to truth? Whose truth does it represent? Stripped down, science essentially means “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” Is true science an elitist or Gnostic pursuit? In other words, can it be understood by only a handful of people. How do we do science? Although the average person will never master science to any degree,  there is a desperate need for non-technical arguments that stand on their own merits, independent of any technical work, and that are at least somewhat comprehensible.

It is important to note that all humans are “scientists” to some degree. In fact, scientific study encompasses more than we realize on the surface—it touches on the philosophical, biological, social, and cultural aspects of life as well. Without realizing it, throughout the day we tend to carefully observe and analyze many aspects of the physical universe. We constantly make “mental notes” of what we observe, and we use those notes to build a conceptual model (or worldview) of how it all works. Each of us, regardless of our mental capacity, constantly acquires and analyzes data in the pursuit of meaning and cause-and-effect.

Stephen Hawking established two sets of questions to be considered when applying science to life and its “big questions.” The first batch of queries focuses on the “hows” of existence:

  • How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?
  • How does the universe behave?
  • What is the nature of reality?
  • Where did this all come from?
  • Did the universe need a creator?

Hawking’s second set of questions relates to the “whys” of existence:

  • Why is there something rather than nothing?
  • Why do we exist?
  • Why this particular set of scientific laws and not some other?

Neil deGrasse Tyson says—

[Science] is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules: test ideas by experiment and observation; build on those ideas that pass the test; reject the ones that fail; follow the evidence wherever it leads; and question everything. Accept these terms and the cosmos is yours.

The “Religion” of Science

Unfortunately, many empiricists believe science and religion are locked in a bitter and contentious war for our minds. Stephen Weinberg, awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, said, “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion. Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact by our greatest contribution to civilisation [sic].” It has been argued that religion cannot cure disease; it cannot usefully explain where humans came from, the origin of life, or how the universe came to be; it is said to be unable to explain volcanoes, earthquakes, thunderstorms, hurricanes, epidemics, allergies, birth defects, diseases, and so on. Scientists dogmatically claim that religion cannot usefully explain one single thing. Of course, there is no basis for a categorical denial of religion’s usefulness in explaining the physical realm.

Consider the following position:

Science is an unstoppable force for human development that will deliver answers to our many questions about the universe, and solve many, if not all, of our human problems: disease, energy, pollution, poverty. At some stage in the future, science will be able to explain everything, and answer all our needs.

It would seem the above is a very narrow viewpoint. I suggest the following as a more accurate and equitable concept: (1) religion is based on faith; (2) science is based on faith; (3) both religion and science give us knowledge of the unseen world; (4) all knowledge of the unseen world must be based on faith; therefore (5) science is a religion.

To a great extent, today’s culture holds the dramatically one-dimensional opinion that what we see is all there is and, accordingly, nature is all we need to explain everything. Charles Colson, in his book How Now Shall We Live? describes this as the philosophy of naturalism. We can define naturalism as the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural, metaphysical, or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. Natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe; the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws and nothing else. Philosophical naturalism is a special instance of the wider concept of philosophy, taking the subject matter and method of philosophy to be continuous with the subject matter and method of other disciplines, especially the natural sciences.

Naturalism is essentially synonymous with humanism. Of course, both schools of thought exclude the supernatural by definition. Interestingly, naturalism claims to answer the how and the why of existence, holding itself as the cultural authority to rule on what is, why it is, and what it means. It can be considered an ism because it lives as a tendency, a stance, a frame of mind, a sequence of mental habits and reflexes. Naturalist philosophers believe no other intellectual enterprise—except pure mathematics—has such reliable and effective means for defining and explaining the universe. Typically, and to the contrary, making sense of human life is the principal business of organized religion. Methodological naturalism is a subset of naturalism, involving a cognitive approach to reality that ignores the metaphysical realm.

Naturalistic scientists try to give the impression that they are fair-minded and objective, thereby hinting that it is “religious” people who are subjective and biased in favor of their personal beliefs. This is basically a ruse; naturalism is as much a philosophy, a worldview, a personal belief system, as any religion. Of course, to claim that observable nature is all there is or ever will be is particularly narrow. This reminds me of Carl Sagan’s trademark statement (at the beginning of his PBS series Cosmos), “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” This is remarkably similar to the Christian liturgical recitation, “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.” I make this comparison merely to show the “religiosity” of naturalism.

The Big Bang theory seems to destroy naturalism, for the naturalist claims that reality is an unbroken sequence of cause-and-effect which can be traced back endlessly. From a purely scientific vantage point, however, the Big Bang suggests a sudden discontinuity in the chain of events. By its very definition, science can trace events back in time only to a certain point—the moment of an originating explosion. It is at this point in time that science reaches an abrupt break; an absolute time barrier. This concept presented Einstein with a dilemma which he wrestled with. He kept tweaking his equations in hopes of avoiding the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. Astronomer Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, believed science had reached its limit, adding it would never be possible to discover whether the “agent of creation” was the God of the Bible or some familiar force of physics. Yet the laws of physics contradict the concept of something from nothing. Matter cannot create itself.

Unfortunately, scientists and educators ignore the perplexing philosophical and religious implications of the Big Bang. In defense of their passing the buck, they say We only deal with science. Discussion of the ultimate cause behind the Big Bang is dismissed as philosophy. Some scientists attempt to sidestep the physics and mathematical implications of the Big Bang and simply say that matter is eternal after all. Of course, they provide no logical or scientific basis for this claim. Carl Sagan tried to bury this ultimate puzzle in a series of events wherein the universe has been expanding and contracting over an infinite amount of time. Sagan’s speculation runs up against the basic laws of physics. Even an oscillating universe would use up the available energy in each cycle, and it would eventually run down. The second law of thermodynamics, the law of decay, negates the notion of an eternal universe.

We should not oppose science with religion; we should oppose bad science with better science!

The Science of Religion

What does observation and induction have to do with discovering the existence of God? Everything! In 1927, the expanding of the universe was observed by astronomer Edwin Hubble. Looking through a 100-inch telescope at California’s Mount Wilson Observatory, Hubble discovered a “red shift” in the light from every observable galaxy, which meant that those galaxies were moving away from us. This was a direct confirmation of General Relativity—the universe appears to be expanding from a single point of origin in the distant past. Einstein reviewed this data and decided he could no longer support the idea of an eternal physical universe. He described the cosmological constant as “the greatest blunder of my life.” Einstein believed God was pantheistic (God is the universe). In any event, he thought perhaps his theory of General Relativity was strong evidence for a theistic God.

If the universe had a beginning, then the universe had a cause. This is the cosmological argument of creation. In logical form, the argument states:

  1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. This is the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Francis Bacon (the father of modern science) believed true knowledge is knowledge by causes. David Hume, a skeptic relative to God, could not deny the Law of Causality. He eventually stated, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition that something could arise without a cause.” There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Since a cause cannot come after its effect, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang.
  2. The universe had a beginning. If the universe did not have a beginning then no cause was needed. However, science and Christian theology admit the world began abruptly in violation of the laws of science.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. If the universe had a beginning, in other words if it is not eternal, then there must be an underlying cause. Robert Jastrow said, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world… the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

Faith—when it is truly faith rather than a mere intellectual assent to some proposition or other—will always seek to enter into a fuller and deeper knowledge and understanding of that which matters most to it. Trevor Hart, in Faith Thinking: The Dynamics of Christian Theology, says faith is concerned with what he calls the internal coherence of its own story or gospel. This involves the ability of educators in a subject to connect and align available resources to carry out the advancement of its theory, engage in collective learning, and use that learning to provide richer educational opportunity for those who continue the study of said theory.

Faith, by its very definition, is a critical reflection of knowledge and not a mere reiteration of some established body of truths. If our intention is genuinely to know the truth, and to allow that truth to shape our thinking and our speaking, then we must approach faith (or, if you prefer, religion) from an interrogative and outward-looking vantage point rather than with a dogmatic or individualistic bend. There is an unfortunate dogmatic warfare between science and Christianity that, if allowed to fester, blocks the science of Christianity from coming to the surface. Zoologist and New Atheist Richard Dawkins insists that all scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, but myths and faiths are not. He likens belief in God to belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or fairies and elves.

J.P. Moreland, a modern-day philosopher from Biola University, believes Christianity is a matter of knowledge, which is supported by logical reasoning and empirical evidence. Faith is not mere emotion or opinion. Personally, I believe all truth is God’s truth. Whatever science proves, it will not contradict the Word of God. The Christian faith is a source of much original knowledge (through its many scientists) that served as a unifying vision, leading to advancement of Western civilization, education, and science. Today, that information (especially its origin) has been pushed indoors as part of a private belief that supposedly has no place in public forums. The problem is not with science, as most of what we consider to be fundamental scientific principles today were established by Bible-believing Christians. The key issue is the philosophical stance of scientism; one of the three major planks of naturalism, the other two being determinism and materialism.

Faith in Something!

Why should we consider belief in spontaneous creation (something from nothing), Darwinism, mutations leading to “new” species, and the Big Bang (as it is taught in public school) to be belief by faith? Because these “theories” go beyond the reach of scientific method. There is a huge difference between “historical” science and that which can be proved through experimental methods. Accordingly, when a “scientist” speaks of the origin of life or the universe, he or she is postulating something that is outside the scope of scientific theory. Unfortunately, many evolutionists refuse to admit that their idea regarding the origin of life and matter is a faith-based system. They argue that science will some day prove their theory. They base this on their comment that we only know part of reality at present, but science will provide all answers some time in the future.

I propose that the Christian and the atheist both live by faith. Each has his or her way of thinking, which is essentially their worldview. It is what they believe about life. Some scientists hold the view that matter and energy are eternal. They believe in a state of equilibrium before our ever-expanding universe burst forth from a very hot, very dense singularity. Of course, there is a contradiction within that very core belief: a state of harmony or equilibrium ceased to be so, bursting forth in a chaotic expression of energy and matter, without intervention. This “theory” has never been proven, yet it is being taught in our public schools as though it is true beyond doubt—that the only explanation for the origin of life is the evolution of “molecules to man.”

If everything was in a “neutral” state of equilibrium before the Big Bang, what made the Big Bang explode? If you believe in the Big Bang from the standpoint of modern science—eternal matter and energy sprang forth from an infinitely dense speck of matter—then you are postulating that the powerful inward pull of gravity somehow overcame its own force and went BANG! Moreover, you believe this tremendously huge and powerful explosion slowed down just enough for every molecule and every universe (great and small) to begin rotating in extremely precise orbits. Then, somehow, these random molecules, created from a random explosion billions of years ago, assembled themselves into water, air, carbon, fiber, enzymes, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, organisms, populations, communities, ecosystems, and so on.

Then there is the matter of biological information. High school teachers never tell their students that the evolutionary model of one cell to man is based on unproven assumptions. Historical science is built exclusively on assumptions. Many necessary steps are taken for granted in the “molecules to man” model. Evolution assumes that non-living chemicals gave rise to the first “living” cell which, in turn, randomly evolved into more complex forms. Of course, this theory is not scientifically testable or experimentally verifiable.

G.A. Jerkut, an evolutionist, admitted to the following assumptions of evolution:

  1. Non-living things gave rise to living material; spontaneous generation occurred;
  2. Spontaneous generation occurred only once;
  3. Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all genetically related;
  4. Protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms);
  5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated;
  6. Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates;
  7. Within vertebrates, fish gave rise to amphibia, amphibia to reptiles, reptiles to birds, and birds to mammals.

However, no cell is simple. For example, bacterium can synthesize some 3,000 to 6,000 compounds at a rate of about 1 million reactions per second. Cells of bacteria and blue-green algae contain just a single molecule of DNA, and they lack well-defined internal structures, such as a nucleus, chromosomes, and internal membranes. They lack the innate capacity to morph into anything else. This is true because they contain information specific to them, and such information cannot rewrite itself, becoming a completely different species. What kind of information does DNA contain? What kind of information must origin-of-life researchers explain the origin of? DNA contains specific information that deepens the mystery surrounding life.

DNA is the specific “code” of life itself. It is a rather dubious claim to state that genetic information came from nothing; that it “wrote” itself. Moreover, information specific to the second definition equals an arrangement or string of characters that accomplishes a particular outcome or performs a function of communication. This is no more possible than the idea that a piece of computer hardware (my laptop, for example) can write code. Moreover, computer software is, by its very definition, the compilation of zeros and ones in a “code” or “language” that tells the hardware what to do. Every single aspect of what I’m doing right now, from the appearance of each distinct letter on this screen to the bold or italic command, to the period at the end of this sentence. Code cannot write itself; it requires a programmer.

Here’s something to ponder. It’s been argued by atheists that if the universe needed a programmer (an intelligent designer), then that intelligent being needed a cause or creating force. This claim misconstrues the argument. Theists say everything that begins to exist needs a cause. The first premise of creationism does not say everything needs a cause. Since God did not begin to exist, He does not need a cause. Atheists also commit the category fallacy in which things from one category are applied to another. Granted, we can debate What caused God for decades, but such arguments are not mere scientific debates; they are disagreements between worldviews. Remarkably, even critics of creationism recognize that the beginning of the universe required something that was not itself caused. Atheists simply state that the laws of physics just exist, period

Concluding Remarks

It is obvious that Darwinism, secularism, and naturalism are prevalent in academia today. It is not necessarily a bad thing to discuss these “theories.” The harm comes when an instructor teaches them as scientific fact, ignoring any alternative theory such as intelligent design. They decide for themselves that the biblical account of creation is entirely unscientific. They fail to distinguish between theory, historical science, and provable science. Instead, they teach evolution in the same manner that they teach mathematical formulae, gravity, friction, thermodynamics, chemistry, and genetics. In fact, they base everything in the universe on the unproven assumption that something came from nothing. They assume that naturalism can account for the origin, organization, development, and fine-tuning of the universe and everything in it regardless of the mathematical impossibility of life beginning without an intelligent designer. (See my blog article Signature in the Cell: The Definition of Life.) 

Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of variation between species. Species—groups of similar organisms within a genus—are designated by biochemical and other phenotypic criteria and by DNA relatedness, based on their overall genetic similarity. You may recall from ninth-grade biology class that living organisms (whether animal or plant, zebra or zucchini) are divided into seven levels: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. The arguments presented by today’s New Atheists fly in the face of logic and probability. The laws of physics, when applied uniformly and fairly, indicate that the universe could not have created itself. Nor could the information of biology write itself.

It is worth stating that people have personal rather than evidential reasons for rejecting God. The assumption that all knowledge must be scientifically provable isn’t scientifically provable. It’s a philosophical claim. People who deny the existence of God want to run their own lives, and they don’t want anyone to interfere with the way they’re living. They want to be in control of everything they do, and they know that if they were to believe in God, they’d have to change their lifestyle. Instead of living by their own list of what’s right and wrong, they’d have to take seriously God’s moral standards.

Paul said in Romans 8:7, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot” (RSV). Why, then, should we allow our children to be taught unproven theories by secularists who refuse to put aside their presuppositions, misconceptions, biases, and personal worldview?

Chemical Evolution As Proposed by Darwinists

Written by Steven Barto, B.S., Psych.

DARWINISTS WANT US TO believe that all species of organisms arose and developed through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increased the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Notwithstanding the fact that Charles Darwin had no formal training or knowledge of genetics, he felt compelled to present an unproven theory of the origin of species. He believed new species are able to originate from prior organisms that have adapted to fit environmental stressors, thus surviving over weaker organisms. Scientists and teachers today have parlayed this into the dogmatic contention that life itself began from inorganic molecules that spontaneously appeared on our planet some time after space, time, and matter created itself out of nothing. In effect, they are attempting to reverse-engineer man by tracing his origin back to molecules present in a so-called organic soup at the dawn of time.

Darwin Book Cover Image.jpg

Granted, Darwin never claimed to explain the origin of life; just the origin of species. The word species means “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.” Species is one of the major categories used in the classification of organisms. A hierarchical system is used for classifying organisms to the species level, which, by definition, is the most specific class of organisms. The categories established by this classification are Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Family, Genus, and Species. Species is sometimes confused with kind or sort, as expressed by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis.

From a biblical perspective, land animals like wolves, zebras, sheep, lions, and so on have at least two ancestors that lived on Noah’s ark, about 4,300 years ago. These animals have undergone many changes since that time. But dogs are still part of the dog kind, cats are still part of the cat kind, and so on. God placed variety within the original kinds, and other variations have occurred due to genetic alterations. This is a scientifically sound theory. Genetic variations have occurred over time, resulting in mutations. Never has such a variation changed a dog into a cat or a butterfly into a bat.

THE BASICS

According to evolutionary biology, once life got started, Darwinian evolution took over and eventually produced the degree of diversity we see on the planet today. Under the standard view, a process of random mutation and natural selection built life’s vast complexity one small mutational step at a time. Of course, all of life’s complex features are encoded in the DNA of living organisms. Building new features thus requires generating new information in the genetic code of DNA. Can the necessary information be generated in a non-directed, step-by-step manner as espoused by Darwin? Darwinian evolution can explain each small step along an evolutionary pathway that might produce some survival advantage. However, when multiple mutations must be present simultaneously to gain a functional advantage, Darwin gets stuck. In fact, Darwin (1859) wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

michaelbehe.jpg

Michael Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He coined the term irreducible complexity to describe systems which require many parts—and thus many mutations—to be present all at once before providing any survival advantage to the organism. According to Behe, such systems cannot evolve in the step-by-step fashion required by Darwinian evolution. As a result, he maintains that random mutation and unguided natural selection cannot generate the genetic information required to produce irreducibly complex structures. Too many simultaneous mutations would be required—an event which is highly unlikely to occur. In other words, if a feature cannot be built by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and if intermediate steps do not confer a net benefit on the organism, then Darwinian evolution will absolutely break down.

THE THEORY OF CHEMICAL EVOLUTION

Darwinian evolution requires a mechanism for generation of diversity in a population, and selective differences between individuals that influence reproduction. In biology, diversity is generated by mutations. Selective differences arise because of the encoded functions of the sequences (e.g., ribozymes or proteins). Today, evolutionists lay claim to a process they call chemical evolution, in which diversity is generated by random chemical synthesis instead of (or in addition to) mutation. They state that selection acts on physio-chemical properties. The story of the unguided (un-designed) chemical evolution of first life has some variations depending on who’s version you read, but its main points can be summarized as follows:

  • At the time when the chemical constituents of the first life were developing, the Earth had virtually no free oxygen, important since the presence of free oxygen would prevent the formation of compounds essential for the origin of life.
  • Nature “invented” a way to produce the chemical letters of the DNA/RNA alphabet: cytosine, adenine, thymine, and guanine (C, A, T, and G).
  • Nature “invented” a way to make the sugars ribose and deoxyribose.
  • Nature “invented” a way to combine these sugars, phosphoric acid, and the DNA/RNA alphabet letters (the four nucleobases) into long chains.
  • Nature “invented” a method to make twenty distinct amino acids into sophisticated protein machines.
  • After inventing all this, nature changed the self-replicating molecule into a system in which DNA coded for amino acids and thus for proteins.
  • Finally, nature “invented” a membrane system that isolated the invented molecules from the environment and metabolism began.

Stanley Miller’s “Chemical Evolution” Experiment

Geologists estimate that the Earth formed around billion years ago. They claim that for many millions of years, early Earth was pummeled by asteroids and other celestial objects. Temperatures would have been very high (with water taking the form of a gas, not a liquid). The first life might have emerged during a break in the asteroid bombardment when it was cool enough for water to condense into oceans. They then point to a second supposed bombardment happened about 3.9 billion years ago. They believe this is the point when Earth became capable of supporting sustained life.

In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did an experiment to determine if organic molecules could be spontaneously produced. under reducing conditions thought to resemble those of early Earth. The result was a tarry slime with 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acids, and 2% amino acids, which they thought resembled those of early Earth.

Similar experiments have produced the same kinds of results:

  • Living organisms have twenty different kinds of amino acids, a twenty-letter alphabet used to “write” protein and protein machines essential to life. But Miller-type experiments produce many amino acids that are not present in proteins. These amino acids aren’t part of the relevant alphabet for coding life.
  • The side chains of amino acids determine their chemical nature. They may be hydrophobic, neutral, acidic, or basic. None of the amino acids with basic side chains (lysine, arginine, and histidine) have been formed in Miller-type experiments, and yet these are crucial for life.
  • In any given experiment, only a few, and at most thirteen, of the twenty amino acids present on proteins have been formed. All twenty are needed for life.
  • The composition of compounds formed in Miller-type experiments differs from that found in living cells. Monofunctional compounds that inhibit polymer formation are oversupplied in Miller-type experiments. To form a chain from molecules, the molecules must have two “sticky ends; if they have only one, there is nothing for the next compound to attach to. Miller-type experiments produce far too few molecules with two “sticky ends.”

The random mixture of chemicals produced by these types of experiments is simply not close enough to that which is required for life. Anindya Das, Assistant Professor at the Department of Microbiology of KPC Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal University of Health Science, Kolkata, India, stated in a paper Published January 7, 2019, “…it can be assumed that the basic constituents of life like Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorous and other inorganic substances combined in a proportion to create first life on earth. Probably the origin of life started from the production of purine, pyrimidine rings, amino acids, sugar alcohols, nucleic acid chains and the first life on earth is prokaryotic microbes which probably evolved from the virus like particles” [Italics mine]. That’s a lot of speculation.

Das divided the origin of life into three steps: Step I—Formation of basic structural elements or building blocks of life like purine and pyrimidine rings, amino acids, glucose, phosphate energy bonds; Step II—Formation of more complex structural forms by chain elongation of basic structural molecules; Step III—Systematic assembling of all these structural elements leading to a structural unit with functional autonomy where all the biochemical reactions can occur automatically, repeated in an organized way, making it an autonomic functional unit capable of recognition, sensing, sigaling, bio-chemical synthesis, degradation (metabolism), energy production, self-duplication (reproduction), homeostasis and information dissipation. Das said the most difficult part of this theory is how formation of more complex structural forms by chain elongation and the systematic assembly of these parts occurred to achieve functional autonomy, forming the first living form.

Given all the talk about nucleic acids, proteins and such, it’s important to note that a living cell is much more than just nucleic acids and proteins. It has the sophistication of a factory or city. This is true of the very basic microorganism. A complex cell membrane is necessary to separate the content of the cell from the environment. It is always formed from the pre-existing membrane, and separates the intracellular reactions from the environment. A cover that separates the complex reaction pathways would provide isolation from the outside world. This is critical to cellular integrity and, consequently, cellular health. Without a proper membrane, the complex reaction pathways would stand no more chance of surviving and succeeding in the so-called primordial soup than a house of cards in a storm. The membrane, therefore, is likely an essential part of the formation of specific transport systems. Any failure in the cellular wall would cause infiltration of damaging molecules from viruses, toxins or other deadly chemical compounds.

Ebola Virus Cell.png

Researchers who have studied Ebola Zaire initially thought that the virus’s glycoprotein is the primary determinant of vascular-cell injury and that Ebola virus infection of endothelial cells induces structural damage, which could contribute to hemorrhagic diathesis—an unusual susceptibility to bleeding—but not enough evidence has been compiled as yet to make this determination. The hemorrhagic tendencies of Ebola Zaire,  however, are related to decreased synthesis of coagulation and other plasma proteins because of severe hepatocellular necrosis. This is a clear indication of the importance of a strong cellular membrane.

Life is Built Upon Genetic Information

DNA STRAND.jpg

An essential property of all life is information. This includes the information written using DNA’s four-letter alphabet—the information in proteins that are built by using instructions from DNA. The chemical structure of DNA does not explain its code—that is, the rules that the cells follow in translating the information in DNA into all functional proteins. Nor does it explain the “software” written by it. (See my post Signature in the Cell: The Definition of Life). The chemical structure doesn’t explain it any better than the chemical composition of ink and paper explain the information contained in a printed book, or the language, syntax, and grammatical rules used to create the message.

Here’s the big question: Where did the genetic code come from? Forget for a moment that molecules are made of matter (which cannot create itself). How could genetic coding change itself and remain viable and functional at each evolutionary stage? Biological information (essentially data) remains a sticky point for those who cling to purely materialistic origins for life. There is no scientific evidence supporting the notion of a mindless origin for this essential feature of life. And there is good reason to believe that biological information, and the language it is written in, instead have their origin in the work of a creative intelligence.

Parting Remarks

Unfortunately, the “official” view in public education remains that life appeared “spontaneously,” not long after the conditions were right, with no need for intelligent design. But there is no credible evidence in support of this dogmatic view. Fred Hoyle wrote, “If there were some deep principle which drove organic systems towards living systems, the operation of the principle should be demonstrable in a test tube in half a morning. Needless to say, no such demonstration has ever been given. Nothing happens when organic materials are subject to the usual prescription of showers of electrical sparks or drenched in ultraviolet light, except the eventual production of a tarry sludge.” He later stated, “The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”

I read in Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, that molecules are tiny machines that require multiple parts in order to function. His most famous example is the bacterial flagellum—a micro-molecular rotary-engine, functioning like an outboard motor on bacteria to propel it through liquid a medium to find food. In this regard, flagella have a basic design that is highly similar to some motors made by humans containing many parts that are familiar to engineers, including a rotor, a stator, a u-joint, a propeller, a brake, and a clutch. As one molecular biologist writes in the journal Cell, “[m]ore so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human.” However the energetic efficiency of these machines outperforms anything produced by humans: the same paper found that the efficiency of the bacterial flagellum “could be ~100%.”

Pierre-Paul Grasse, past president of the French Academy of Sciences, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Many other scientists feel this way. More than 800 PhD scientists have signed a statement agreeing they “are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life” (See “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/). Indeed, Thornton and DeSalle (2000) wrote in Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics: “[I]t remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized functions.”

Resources

Behe, Michael. Darwin’s Black Box. New York: Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, 2006.

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. (Chapter 6). UK: John Murray Publications, 1859.

DeRosier, David. “The turn of the screw: The bacterial flagellar motor.” Cell, 93: 17-20, 1998.

Thornton, Joseph and DeSalle, Rob. “Gene Family Evolution and Homology: Genomics Meets Phylogenetics,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 1:41-73, 2000.

Signature in the Cell: The Definition of Life

“What a wildly wonderful world, God! You made it all, with Wisdom at your side,
    made earth overflow with your wonderful creations. Oh, look—the deep, wide sea, brimming with fish past counting, sardines and sharks and salmon”

(Psalm 104:24-25, MSG).

Written by Steven Barto, B.S., Psych.

CHRISTIANS TODAY ARE FREQUENTLY looked upon with suspicion as a subculture that holds strange, old-fashioned, narrow-minded views on the origin of the universe, the nature of man, and the existence of a supreme being. In certain circles, especially politics and academia, there is a degree of condescension, suspicion, and contempt. The world sees Christians as “haters” or “bashers,” labeling us  elitist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, and delusional. Unfortunately, this is due in part to the words Christians use when taking on today’s culture. Still others say Christians are on the opposite side of science, believing in a fairy tale God, holding irrational beliefs as to the origin of life and the universe. Although Christians are called upon to be ready to defend the Gospel at any time, 1 Peter 3:15 provides a clear admonition that when doing so we are to show courtesy and respect.

Darwin Portrait

In Darwin’s time, few, if any biologists talked about biological or genetic information. Today, they routinely refer to DNA, RNA, and proteins: carriers or repositories of information. Biologists tell us that DNA stores and transmits “genetic information,” that it contains a genetic message, including instructions—a genetic blueprint or digital code—regarding how the life it “represents” should be assembled. Biology has recently entered its own information age. Scientists seeking to explain the origin of life have taken note. Life is not made up of mere matter and energy, but also information. Since matter and energy existed before life, this critical aspect of living organisms is now center stage. Inanimate matter cannot write the information necessary for life. At some point, biological information came into existence. Consequently, theories that claim to explain the origin of life must answer the genetics question.

It’s a Matter of Information

What exactly is “biological information?” Beginning in the 1940s, mathematicians and computer scientists began to define, study, measure, and quantify information. They made distinctions between several types of information. What kind of information does DNA contain? What kind of information must origin-of-life researchers explain the origin of? DNA contains specific information that deepens the mystery surrounding life. Most of us use the term information to describe some piece of knowledge. According to the standard definition, information holds two distinct meanings: (i) facts provided or learned about something or someone; and (ii) what is conveyed or represented by an arrangement or sequence of things. The second definition is on point regarding our discussion on the origin of biological or genetic information. It refers to genetically transmitted information. The specific “code” of life itself. It is a rather dubious claim to state that genetic information came from nothing; that it “wrote” itself. Moreover, information specific to the second definition equals an arrangement or string of characters that accomplishes a particular outcome or performs a function of communication.

Indeed, DNA contains alternative sequences of nucleotides that can produce some specific effect. This certainly indicates that DNA contains information or, if you prefer, instructions, regarding life. Neither DNA nor the cellular machinery that uses its information is conscious. As an appropriate comparison, neither does software “code” comprehend the existence of the software program itself. Yet clearly software contains a kind of information or instruction. Strikingly, its code is made up of some combination of zeros and ones: yes/no, left/right, this/that. How much more complex is the genetic code of a living organism?

Information theory was developed in the 1940s—81 years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, which he claimed explained the development of the rather complicated and sometimes messy process of speciation. In was in the 1940s that MIT engineer and mathematician Claude Shannon was studying an obscure branch of algebra. Few people were paying attention. He had taken nineteenth-century mathematician George Boole’s system of putting logical expressions in mathematical form and applied its categories of “true” and “false” to switches found in electronic circuits. I am reminded of my study of basic electronics and electrical systems in the 1970s as a high school student, wherein the movement of energy through a circuit was determined by whether a switch was “open” or “closed.” Shannon’s master’s thesis has been called “possibly the most important, and also the most famous, master’s thesis of the century.” It eventually became the foundation for digital-circuit and digital-computer theory. Today, structures exhibiting specified complexity in living organisms are completely unknown and unknowable apart from the DNA, RNA, and proteins that establish their genetic features.

Applying Information Theory to Life

Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of variation between species. Species—groups of similar organisms within a genus—are designated by biochemical and other phenotypic criteria and by DNA relatedness, based on their overall genetic similarity. You may recall from ninth-grade biology class that living organisms (whether animal or plant, zebra or zucchini) are divided into seven levels: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.

Classification System.png

There are five kingdoms, which are determined by how living organisms obtain their food, the types of cells that make up their body, and the number of cells they contain. Phylum gives us a grouping of physical similarities. Class designation narrows similarities even further. For example, the reason man is considered a mammal is because we too drink milk from our birth mothers. Order is based on taxonomy—a checklist of characteristics that determines how organisms are grouped together. Orders are then divided into families. Because they share much genetic information, organisms in a family are said to be related to each other. Genus is a way to describe the genetic name for an organism. Species is the most specific classification of living organisms, hence the word used to label the category. The root for this term comes from the Latin specificus meaning “constituting a kind or sort.” Accordingly, when we identify a subject in conversation, we are said to get specific.

Consider species with which we are familiar. We recognize zebras by their stripes, elephants by their trunks, giraffes by their long necks, bald eagles by the color of the feathers on their heads, and monarch butterflies by the patterns on their gossamer wings. Species are defined by their traits. This is true across all life. Mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, fish, starfish, sea urchins, crustaceans, arachnids, insects, worms of all kinds, shellfish, octopi, snails, corals, jellyfish, sponges, mosses, ferns, grasses, orchids, fruit trees, fungi, algae, bacteria, and all the life forms on earth possess unique combinations of traits. The origin of species is a question of the origin of traits. If you want to know the origin of zebras, you need to discover the origin of stripes. The origin of plants is bound up in the origin of trunks. Giraffe origins are inextricable from the origin of long necks. The origin of any species is found in the origin of the traits that define them. Examination of traits must include microscopic observation.

Let’s Get Specific

Somatic cells (i.e., non-reproductive cells) divide through a process of cell division termed mitosis. In both animals and plants, before the nucleus breaks down, structures that look like flexible noodles (called chromosomes) appear during a period termed prophase. Through prometaphase, the membrane surrounding the nucleus breaks down. The process continues through a complicated sequence of events. Because the process of nuclear division is so complex, it suggests a functional role for chromosomes. If chromosomes were inert and irrelevant to heredity, why would cells take such care to pass them on via such a unique and detailed cycle?dna helixThe answer to the how of DNA function is intricately bound up in the structure of DNA. Any potential structure for DNA must show how it could carry complex hereditary information. The architecture cannot simply repeat unchanging units. Chemically, the structure of DNA would need to be stable over many generations in order to pass traits along to future generations. For example, elephants produce more elephants each generation, giraffes more giraffes, bald eagles more bald eagles, and so on. The stable framework of DNA is the only explanation for this phenomenon. In addition, DNA must suggest a method by which it can be replicated. Without consistent transformation of genetic information, hereditary traits would become diluted and, ultimately, extinguished. Theoretically, this would result in a gradual fading of features familiar between parent and offspring, and, consequently, between homo sapiens.

Biologists eventually discovered the double helix, the structural relationship between DNA and chromosomes. DNA doesn’t exist in chromosomes as a long, straight stretch of helix. Rather, chromosomes represent dense forms of DNA. This is accomplished by packaging of DNA—cells wrap these helices around proteins in progressively higher levels of concentration to form the familiar chromosome shape. When sperm and egg fuse, the chromosomes of the sperm join the same nuclear compartment as the chromosomes of the egg. Interestingly, these paternal and maternal chromosomes exist as individual entities, carrying coded information from each parent. In other words, since both the father and the mother provide an equal number of chromosomes, both parents make an equal contribution to the features of the newly conceived offspring. Given the intricate science of heredity, it is simply impossible for the DNA of a giraffe to morph into the DNA of a chimpanzee. An offspring mimics its parents, period.

Remarkably, the physical basis for heredity—the nature of the very code of life—was not uncovered until nearly 100 years after Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. This is indeed a significant bone of contention. Without this genetic information, Darwin could not have accurately argued for the origin of species. If he had no concept of how traits were written in a genetic code, he could not have identified the origin of any particular trait. In addition, he had no biogenetic knowledge that giraffes cannot become buffaloes. Moreover, reptiles cannot develop into mammals. It is simply not possible—not even through mutation. In other words, Darwin could not logically argue that through survival of the fittest a salamander became more adept at surviving in trees, leading them to eventually become birds, flying from tree to tree in the acquiring of food. This violates the very code of speciation.

What Are the Odds?

Carl Sagan Photo.jpg

The arguments presented by today’s New Atheists fly in the face of logic and probability. They espouse their theory on the origin of life amidst a vacuum of proof. Indeed, despite mathematical probability. I was a huge fan of Carl Sagan. My father and I used to watch his weekly television program on PBS. I loved hearing him utter those famous words, “…billions and billions.”  Sagan went to his grave viewing the universe as nothing more than molecules in motion. Granted, we and everything around us are comprised of molecules. Looking at the atom, we see a tiny universe unto itself—protons and neutrons orbiting a nucleus. Stepping back, we can see each atom orbiting other atoms in myriad combinations specific to the type of substance it is—air, water, carbon, hydrogen, grass, trees, the family dog, the food we eat, even the screen on which you are viewing these words. In fact, molecules of light are making it possible for you to see your computer screen.

BigBang

Sagan, and others, would have us believe this finely-tuned orchestra of atoms circling atoms, planets circling the sun, the Milky Way circling other universes, just “happened” at some indiscriminate point in the observable past, when the universe just burst forth from a singular point of extremely hot and extremely dense matter. Matter, incidentally, which they claim popped into existence out of nothing. They fail to explain why it is okay for their theory to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Something cannot come from nothing. Energy cannot create itself. Further, prior to the Big Bang (which, by the way, is a term that does adequately describe the point when the universe began) time, space, and matter simply did not exist.

Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Science has calculated the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life as one out of 10,000,000,000124 which is a number that exceeds all imagination. Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe found that the odds of the random formation of a single enzyme from amino acids anywhere on our planet’s surface are one in 1020 and, in addition, that there are about two thousand enzymes. The probability of these enzymes assembling randomly in a pattern that could define life is only one part in (1020 ) 20,000 or 1040,000. This is an outrageously small probability that could not be achieved even if the entire universe consisted of a dense organic soup. This is just one step in the formation of life. Nothing has yet been said about DNA and where it came from, or of the transcription of DNA to RNA, which scientists say cannot even be numerically computed.

Scientists have yet to thoroughly explain mitosis and meiosis. The first term mitosis refers to a cell dividing into two clones of itself, each with the same number of chromosomes. On the other hand, meiosis describes cell division that produces four cells (called gametes). These gametes are more commonly called sperm in males and eggs in females. Unlike in mitosis, the gametes produced by meiosis are not clones of the original cell, because each gamete has exactly half as many chromosomes as the original cell. A chromosome is a thread-like object (scientists literally called them threads or loops when they were first discovered) made of a material called chromatin.

dna

Chromatin is made of DNA and special structural proteins called histones. One way to think of a chromosome is as one very long strand of DNA, with a bunch of histone proteins stuck to it like beads on a string. Chromosomes are stored in the nuclei of cells. If you compare the diameter of a cell nucleus (between 2 and 10 microns) to the length of a chromosome (between 1 and 10 centimeters, when fully extended!), you can see that a chromosome must be scrunched up into a very small package in order to fit inside a nucleus. The average chromosome is about a thousand times longer than a cell nucleus is wide. The situation is a bit like how a very long snake can coil up into a tight ball. This process is known, but the mechanism is not understood.

Joey Lagarbo, a scientist who works in the field of genetics, stated, “I completely understand where [this] comes from but at the end of the day it will only confuse you more. There are 46 chromosomes in a diploid human cell or 23 pairs of homologous chromosomes. Each of these 46 chromosomes do replicate but are still attached to each other by a centromere (that’s how we get the prototypical X shape of a chromosome). Each replicated chromosome is composed of two sister chromatids that are attached at the hip by a centromere; they are NOT completely separated. In other words, we went from 46 ‘I’ shaped chromosomes to 46 ‘X’ shaped chromosomes.” Someone responded to Lagarbo’s explanation by saying, “I understand this, but if someone could explain [the] conceptual problem it would be very much appreciated.”

A Change of Worldview

Jean Paul Sarte.jpgI want to share something about Jean-Paul Sartre. He was a French atheist and existential philosopher, most noted for his 1943 Being and Nothingness. Sartre promoted an anti-deterministic philosophy. In other words, science not based on causality. That’s scary! This is a type of existentialism based on the “logic” that existence precedes essence, and that matter is only defined by what man thinks it is. Man, according to Sartre’s initial philosophy, first materializes into the world, encounters himself, and only afterwards defines himself. There is no “definition” of anything outside of man’s opinion as to what it means to him. This is an anti-materialistic worldview that stands at odds with the scientific basis of existence. He wrote, “The effect of any form of materialism is to treat all men—including oneself—as objects, which is to say as a set of predetermined reactions indistinguishable from the properties and phenomena that constitute, say, a table, a chair, or a stone.”

The problem is that man is said to be free to choose—to invent himself and the physical universe. There would therefore be no genetic code for anything, let alone ethics. No ontological proscription for how man should behave. This is the very essence of moral relativism: The view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to culture and the zeitgeist of each historical period. No standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. Amazingly, Sartre underwent a deathbed conversion espousing the grace of God and the “creatureliness” of man. Reversing himself, he said, “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God” [emphasis mine].

Divine Design

The astronomical evidence for God must be strong when atheistic scientists admit that the universe exploded out of nothingness. Agnostic astronomers now claim that supernatural forces were at work in the beginning, leading them back to a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. But the scientific evidence for God does not end with the Cosmological Argument. For many, the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more persuasive evidence for the existence of God. This evidence, technically known as the Teleological Argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means “design.”

The essence of the Teleological Argument is this:

  • Every design has a designer
  • The universe has a highly complex design
  • Therefore, the universe has a Designer

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) wrote, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” William Paley (1743-1805) made the now-famous argument by his commonsense assertion that every watch requires a watchmaker. Imagine you’re walking along in the woods and you find a diamond-studded Rolex on the ground. What do you conclude is the cause of that watch: The wind and the rain? Erosion? Perhaps some combination of natural forces? Not at all! There is absolutely no question in your mind that some intelligent being made that watch, and that some unfortunate individual must have accidentally dropped it in the woods.

Our universe is, in fact, even more complex than that watch—containing a planet with a myriad of improbable and independent life-supporting conditions that make it a tiny oasis in a vast and hostile universe. Odds noted above that Princeton’s Donald Page put forth, and which astronomers Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe added to some time later, support intelligent design. These highly precise and interdependent conditions (which are called “anthropic constants”) make up what is known as the “Anthropic Principle.” In essence, the Anthropic Principle states that the universe is extremely fine-tuned (designed) to support human life here on earth. But this concept is more than a mere supposition. It is dependent on particular conditions:

  1. Oxygen Level. On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an anthropic constant that makes life on earth possible. If the oxygen level was just a few percentage points higher, fires would erupt spontaneously; if it were a few percentage points lower, human beings would suffocate. We know this is true from numerous summits at Mount Everest that require climbers to gradually acclimate to lower levels of oxygen higher up the mountain. Typically, climbers must supplement their need with bottled oxygen or risk dying from high-altitude cerebral or pulmonary edema (HACE or HAPE).
  2. Atmospheric Transparency. The small window astronauts must hit reflects the exacting standards by which the universe has been designed. While the atmosphere presents a reentry problem for astronauts, its present qualities are absolutely essential for life here on earth. The degree of transparency of the atmosphere is an anthropic constant. If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar energy would reach the surface. If it were more transparent, we could be bombarded with a lethal amount of solar energy. Moreover, the atmospheric composition of precise levels of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ozone are in themselves antropic constants. (This is why we’ve heard near-doomsday warnings about a thinning of or a hole in the ozone layer.)
  3. Moon-Earth Gravitational Interaction. If the gravitational interaction between the moon and the earth were greater than it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were weaker, orbital changes would cause serious climate instability. In either event, life on earth would be impossible.
  4. Carbon Dioxide Level. Precisely the correct amount of carbon dioxide is maintained naturally in the earth’s atmosphere. In fact, forests play a critical role in the global carbon cycle by absorbing carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, storing carbon above and below ground, and producing oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis. Consider the danger of increased “carbon footprints” created by various forms of pollution, including transportation and manufacturing. The phrase  greenhouse gases is based on the increased “greening” of our trees, which is causing higher concentration of carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere.
  5. Gravity. The gravity that is pulling earth’s inhabitants to the surface is also an anthropic constant. Its strength may be frightening and mysterious, but it couldn’t be any different for life to exist. If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and, therefore, neither would we. Now that’s precise design!

Typically, atheists respond to the concept of an Anthropic Principle in one of two ways. Some admit there’s some kind of Designer. Astronomer Fred Hoyle had his atheistic beliefs shaken, responding to this concept by agreeing that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, chemistry, and biology. Although he was vague, Hoyle recognized that the fine-tuning of the universe requires intelligence. Other atheists admit design but then claim there is no Designer. They say this precise tuning “happened by chance.” This flies in the face of basic logic. How can the universe be designed (indeed, finely-tuned) without a “tuner?” Pianos cannot possibly tune themselves. Nor could the universe have “designed” itself.

Concluding Remarks

John Glenn, on his return to space in 1998 aboard the space shuttle Discovery, said, “To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me impossible.” Nearly 2,000 years ago Paul wrote, “Ever since the creation of the world [God’s] invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20, RSV). Evidence of a heavenly Designer is clear, but man often takes it for granted or, more typically, sets out to prove a negative: There is no God, therefore God did not create the universe. C.S. Lewis, in his iconic book The Screwtape Letters provides great insight into this tendency we have to take for granted the amazing world around us. It seems that in our empirical world we are too busy to slow down and contemplate the universe and our place in it.

All instruction, all teaching, all training, comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Every cell in our bodies contains a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program. A computer program is written in the language of ones and zeros: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA in each of our cells is very similar. It’s made up of four chemicals: adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. When mapping genomes, scientists abbreviate these chemicals A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell similar to the following: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT. I find it remarkable that there are approximately three billion letters arranged in code for every cell in a living organism. The very function of each cell is determined by how the code is written.

We’re often told by “scientists” that God does not exist. They don’t leave it there. They also add that science cannot prove the presence of a metaphysical concept or an ephemeral being. Of course, the “logical” conclusion they come to is God is not real. The irony is not lost on me that they are trying to prove a negative by using the same science that actually points to several critical points: (i) the universe began as a very hot and very dense singularity; (ii) energy and matter cannot create itself; (iii) the universe is expanding, and will ultimately cease to exist due to entropy and chaos; (iv) all physical elements, from from the subatomic level to the the endless expanse of the universe, orbit each other in an extremely well-tuned dance; (v) the Anthropic Principle provides a critical examination of five major factors which, if altered even one tittle, would cause the extinction of all forms of life on earth.

The laws of physics, when applied uniformly and fairly, indicate that the universe could not have created itself. The scientific principle cause and effect fails to support the birth of our universe from nothing, as there is no known explanation for the cause of the singularity or the cause of the “explosion” that formed everything. Scientists who accept that the universe was formed from the Big Bang believe their assumptions are true. However, they too rely on “faith” to conclude that that the universe was born at the precise moment of the Big Bang from an infinitely small point of hot, dense matter for which they have no explanation of its original source. Simply stated, they have absolutely no theory for the original source of this matter and energy. William Paley’s logical conclusion was that every watch requires a watchmaker.

The Angry Atheists

When Jerry Falwell died on May 15, 2007, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper asked the caustic atheist Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) for his reaction. Cooper said, “I’m not sure if you believe in heaven, but, if you do, do you think Jerry Falwell is in it?” Hitchens held nothing back. He took a deep breath, smirked, and said, “No. And I think it’s a pity there isn’t a hell for him to go to.” Cooper was taken aback. “What is it about him that brings up such vitriol?” Hitchens said, “The empty life of this ugly little charlatan proves only one thing, that you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just get yourself called reverend.” Hitchens told Cooper he thought Falwell was “…a bully and a fraud” who was essentially a Bible-thumping huckster.

I was introduced to Christian apologist Dinesh D’Souza in my World Views class at Colorado Christian University. One of the weekly assignments included watching a debate between D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens. I was shocked at the amount of venomous, loaded, sarcastic language Hitchens kept throwing his opponent. Hitchens always came across as a bombastic bully better at delivering witty zingers than compelling arguments. D’Souza writes, “A group of prominent atheists—many of them evolutionary biologists—has launched a public attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular; they have no interest in being nice.” He notes a comment made by Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion, displaying Dawkins’ anger at God:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infaticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

In a Christianity Today article dated March 13, 2008, Tony Snow writes, “There are two types of Christian apologetics. One makes the positive case for faith; the other responds to critics. Dinesh D’Souza’s delightful book, What’s So Great About Christianity, falls into the second category. It sets out to rebut recent exuberant atheist tracts, such as Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion.” Snow notes that these so-called militant atheists tend to combine argument with large doses of bitter biography. Hitchens has gone so far as to state, “…religion poisons everything.”

Dr. David Jeremiah, in his book I Never Thought I’d See the Day!, said, “When I write of the anger of the atheists, I am not primarily referring to the classic atheists such as Bertrand Russel, Jean-Paul Sartre, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud. The atheists I am writing about are the ‘New Atheists.’ The term ‘new atheism’ was first used by Wired magazine in November 2006 to describe the atheism espoused in books like Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell, Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion, Lewis Wolpert’s Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast, Victor Stenger’s The Comprehensible Cosmos, Sam Harris’s The End of Faith, and Christopher Hitchens’s God is Not Great.

WHY ALL THIS ANGER?

How can people  be so angry with God if they do not even believe He exists? Moreover, why would those most indignant about God feel such compulsion to literally preach their anti-God religion with the type of zeal we typically see from evangelists? Do they consider atheism to be their religion? Today’s front line atheists have truly ramped up the volume of their objections. They once held private their personal opinion that God does not exist. Today, they find it necessary to go on talk shows and lecture circuits announcing their belief in loud, shrill, militant voices.

The Pew Research Center (2019) published an article indicating that in the United States the ages 14–17 are very influential in terms of an individual adopting atheism. Of those who do embrace unbelief in the United States, many do so in their high school years. The average age group when most people decide they do not believe in God is 18-29 (40%). Theodore Beale declared, “”…the age at which most people become atheists indicates that it is almost never an intellectual decision, but and emotional one.” The Christian apologist Ken Ammi concurs in his essay The Argument for Atheism from Immaturity and writes, “It is widely known that some atheists rejected God in their childhood, based on child-like reasons, have not matured beyond these childish notions and thus, maintain childish emotional reactions toward the idea of God.” It is likely some great trauma or loss has caused the young atheist to not only reject God but to be filled with anger and resentment.

Men such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are known for taking a look-back-in-anger, take-no-prisoners type of atheism. They, and most other active but not-so-famous atheists, reject the term “militant,” and refuse to explain their anger. Antony Flew, atheist-turned-believer and apologist, said, “What was significant about these [men’s] books was not their level of argument—which was modest, to put it mildly—but the level of visibility they received both as best sellers and as a ‘new’ story discovered by the media. The ‘story’ was helped even further by the fact that the authors were as voluble and colorful as their books were fiery.” Their delivery sounds a lot like hellfire-and-brimstone preachers warning us of dire retribution, even of apocalypse.

It’s obvious that atheists in the West today have become more outspoken and militant. The “average” atheist balks at the term militant, claiming it has no place in non-belief; only in radical, violent extremists like the Christians of the Crusades and Islamic terrorists. Fine. Let’s take a look at the meaning of militant: “combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.” No, these new atheists do not seem to be violent, but you don’t have to be violent to be militant. They are surely combative and aggressive, often using rude, brutish, insulting confrontation in lieu of substantive comebacks. Dinesh D’Souza says what we are witnessing in America is atheist backlash. The atheists thought they were winning—after all, Western civilization has adopted pluralism and moral relativism—but now they realize that, far from dying quietly, Christianity is on the upswing. This is precisely why the new atheists are striking back, using all the vitriol they can command.

For example, consider the title of some of the books the new atheists have written:

  • The God Delusion—Richard Dawkins
  • The End of Faith—Sam Harris
  • God: The Failed Hypothesis—Victor Stenger
  • God is Not Great—Christopher Hitchens

SOMETHING IS LACKING IN THIS NEW ATHEISM

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and others refuse to engage the real issues involved in the question of whether God exists. None of them even address the central grounds for positing the reality of God. Flew notes Sam Harris makes absolutely no mention of whether it’s possible that God does exist. Moreover, these new atheists fail to address the pesky question Where did the matter come from that forms our universe? They don’t discuss rationality, consciousness, or conceptual thought. I’d love to know where they believe our intellectual capacity, as well as metacognition—thinking about thinking—and who we are and what life really means came from. Neither do they present a plausible  worldview that explains the existence of law-abiding, life-supporting, altruistic behavior. They have no plausible explanation for the development of ethics and truth.

Flew goes so far as to comment, “It would be fair to say that the ‘new atheism’ is nothing less than a regression to the logical positivist philosophy that was renounced by even its most ardent proponents. In fact, the ‘new atheists.” it might be said, do not even rise to logical positivism. Hold on. Let’s take a minute to look at positivism so we’re on the same page as Flew and his argument. Simply stated, it is a Western philosophy that confines itself to the data of experience and excludes a priori or metaphysical speculation. It has also been known as empiricism and, later in the 20th century, analytic philosophy.

WHAT THEY WANT

For the militant atheists, the solution is to weaken the power of faith and religion worldwide and to drive religion completely from the public sphere so that it can no longer have an impact on academia or public policy. In their view, they believe a secular world would be a safer and more peaceful world without the concept of religious faith. D’Souza writes, “Philosopher Richard Rorty proclaimed religious belief ‘politically dangerous’ and declared atheism the only practical basis for a ‘pluralistic, democratic society.’ These ideas resonate quite broadly in Western culture today.”

Isn’t it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about?—Richard Dawkins

Dinesh D’Souza writes, “It seems that atheists are not content with committing cultural suicidethey want to take your children with them. The atheist strategy can be described in this way: let the religious people breed them, and we will educate them to despise their parents’ beliefs.” In other words, militant atheists are more concerned with indoctrinating our young students against their parents’ religious influence through promoting an anti-religious agenda. It’s been said that Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Christopher Hitchens, who was an ardent Darwinist, wrote, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?” Hitchens accused religion of preying upon the uninformed and undefended minds of the young. He did not take kindly to Christian parochial schools. He boldly stated, “If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world.”  Sam Harris likened belief in Christianity to a form of slavery! Biologist E.O. Wilson recommended using science to eradicate religion by showing that the mind itself is a product of evolution and that free moral choice is an illusion.

Sam Harris goes further, saying atheism should be taught as a mere extension of science and logic. Harris says, “Atheism is not a philosophy. It is not even a view of the world. It is simply an admission of the obvious. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.” Dawkins believes faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to small pox virus but harder to eradicate. He writes in The God Delusion, “Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.” Sigmund Freud regarded religion as a illusion (rather than a delusion, which is a psychiatric term), but he was by no means militant, combatant or completely closed-minded on the subject. In fact, he often invited religious leaders to his home to discuss the merits of their faith. He at least seemed open-minded, albeit not convinced.

Philosopher Richard Rorty argued that secular professors in the universities are out to “arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.” It’s as if these atheist professors intend to discredit parents in the eyes of their children, trying to strip them of their fundamentalist beliefs, making such beliefs seem silly rather than worthy of discussion. D’Souza writes, “The conventions of academic life, almost universally, revolve around the assumption that religious belief is something that people grow out of as they become educated.”

CONCLUDING REMARKS

As children, we certainly spend a great amount of time in school. Basic psychology tells us early child development encompasses physical, socio-emotional, cognitive and motor development between birth and age 8. A continuum of care—from preconception through the formative years—is needed to safeguard and maximize children’s developmental outcomes. Indeed, the first five years of a child’s life effect who a child will turn out to be. The beliefs, emotions, and action-tendencies represent the accumulated experiences people have had while trying to get their needs met, which plays a key role in personality development. Accordingly, personality develops around our motivations (our needs and goals). Children of Christian parents who grow up in an environment that consistently presents and lives the Gospel enter public school with an understanding of Who and What God is. This is more pronounced if they attended a parochial school prior to entering college. Secular professors want to dismantle that belief system in the interest of empirical science and truth.

Militant atheists have come out of the shadows of private belief with the intention of attacking theism in general and Christianity in particular. They are no longer content with deciding for themselves that there is no God. They feel compelled to poison the minds of young college students, steering them away from their faith, by bombarding them with science, logical positivism, Darwinism, pluralism, and moral relativism and… well, whatever works. Just as long as they can convince the world that God is dead one college student at a time.

Praise God that He lives so that we may live.

References

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. New York, NY: Bantam Press.

Jeremiah, D. (2011). I Never Thought I’d See the Day! New York, NY: FaithWords.

Pew Research Center. (2019). Age and Distribution Among Atheists. Retrieved from: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/

Snow, T. (March 13, 2008). “New Atheists are Not So Great.” Christianity Today. Retrieved from: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/march/25.79.html

Replacing Darwin: During Reformation Month!

FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO this month, the Reformation was initiated by a German priest and professor named Martin Luther, and continued by others such as Calvin and Zwingli. Luther’s letter to his ecclesiastical superiors denouncing the sale of indulgences included his 95 Theses. Luther opened with theses 1 and 2, which stated, ¹”When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent,’ He willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance. ² This word cannot be understood as referring to the Sacrament of Penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.” Luther added, “Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.” (Thesis No. 21)

In any event, Luther began the Reformation in October 1517. It was a movement that called the church back to the authority of God and away from the fallible opinions of man as vicar, which had led to severe compromise of the clear teaching of the Word of God. The Bible-upholding movement was so powerful that today we are still experiencing the effects of this historical shaking of the very foundation of doctrine that spread from Germany to the entire world.

Throughout history, whenever we witness a great work of God, our adversary the devil, “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience” (See Ephesians 2:2) aggressively tries to undo the truth. I believe one of the major tactics Satan uses to counter the good effects of the Reformation relates back to the Book of Genesis. It began with a claim that the earth was very old, based on supposed geologic evidences (that grew out of a belief in naturalism and spread widely in the early 1800s) of slow, natural processes, with nothing supernatural involved. An old age for the earth was necessary to justify the ideas behind naturalism, and the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species soon followed in 1859.

Darwin’s book was an attempt to explain how animals and plants arose by natural processes, not supernatural means (intelligent design) revealed and documented for us by the Creator Himself in Genesis. Ultimately, armed with this cache of scientific “evidence” that the earth was supposedly millions of years old, and the supposition that molecules eventually gave rise to man, this led to the idea that man evolved from ape-like creatures, compromising the biblical teachings of theologians. Man decided that Genesis should be regarded as mythology. From both inside and outside the church, the Darwinian revolution changed the hearts and minds of generations concerning biblical authority. To this day, most church leaders and Christian academic institutions are infected by the religion of naturalism.

The result has been devastation in our churches. Today about two-thirds of our young adults are leaving the church in America, and very few are returning. There is a lack of trust in biblical authority and Scriptural knowledge in America today. See my blog post on biblical illiteracy by clicking here: https://theaccidentalpoet.net/2017/09/01/gods-point-of-view/ Today, church attendance in America is down 22 percent compared to a study taken in 2014. (See Pew Research Center Study here: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/ ) America’s once very Christianized culture is now divided between an aggressive secularist philosophy and a dwindling number of those with a Christian worldview.

Sadly, compromise in Genesis has undone much of what the Reformation had accomplished. It’s why at Answers in Genesis (https://answersingenesis.org/) their theme for this year has been “Igniting a New Reformation.” We need to see a new reformation in the hearts and minds of God’s people in our churches before a much-needed spiritual revival can occur in this nation – a country that’s becoming increasingly hostile towards Scripture, and, unfortunately, Christianity.

This month, to honor the Bible and the Great Reformation, Answers in Genesis scientist Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson – PhD in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard – has launched what is considered a ground-breaking new book entitled Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species. You can order a copy by clicking here: Replacing Darwin. Richard Dawkins, militant atheist extraordinaire, and author of The God Delusion, said of Darwin’s theory of evolution, “Big enough to undermine the idea of creation but simple enough to be stated in a sentence, the theory of natural selection is a masterpiece.” Dawkins is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford. He was University of Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 to 2008. I have watched his debates with Giles Fraser, John Lennox, and Denis Noble.

Jeanson’s book is the first major project to carefully research and then offer a direct frontal attack on the very essence of the arguments Darwin used to promote evolution, and which have become popularized in our culture (including also a large part of the church). If you enjoy studying apologetics, this book is a must for your personal library. Even if you don’t understand some of the technical material, you will grasp the basic arguments against evolution that people need to learn today. I’m reminded of the observation of Hosea the prophet: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6)

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Debates between the likes of Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D’Souza are often portrayed in the popular media as “science versus faith,” but in reality these disputations are more accurately “an atheistic worldview versus a biblical worldview.” Despite what we’re lead to believe, evolution is not mainstream science, but rather a philosophical view of earth history based on speculation. Many Christians in the field of science have noted that there is no conflict between true science and the Bible. Denying evolution does not, as many atheist celebrities claim, hinder the development of new science and technology. Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, inventor of the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) machine – the precursor to the MRI machine we use today – said, “Regarding evolution, the scientific evidence needed to sustain it does not exist.”

All that the paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains of fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth, and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a supposed line of human decent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees allegedly diverged from a common ancestor. Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmented fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn’t help much either, because it contradicts fossil evidence. N.A. Takahata, author of “Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans,” (1995) said, “Even with the DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness.” – 1 Corinthians 3:19