We will be concluding our series today about the Case for a Creator. Over the last few weeks we have been looking at evidences that point
towards a creator. As follows is a summary of what we looked at:
Doubts about Darwinism
Like all other scientific theories, Darwinian
evolution must be continually compared with the evidence, If it does not fit
the evidence, it must be reevaluated or abandoned—otherwise it is not science,
but myth. If you were to embrase Darwinism
and its underlying premise of naturalism, you would have to believe that:
·
Nothing produces
everything
·
Non-life produces life
·
Randomness produces
fine-tuning
·
Chaos produces
information
·
Unconsciousness produces
consciousness
·
Non-reason produces
reason
To believe Darwinism you would have to take a
huge leap of faith. Simply put, the central pillars of evolutionary theory
quickly rotted away when exposed to scrutiny.
Where science meets
faith
A big, fundamental question, like belief in God
(or disbelief), is not settled by a single argument, its complicated for that.
What one has to do is to consider lots of different issues and see whether or
not the answers one gets add up to a total picture that makes sense.
The evidence of
Cosmology
Thanks to scientific discoveries of the last
fifty years, the ancient kalam cosmological argument has taken on a powerful
and persuasive new force. As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple
yet elegant:
first, whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Even renowned skeptic David Hume didn’t deny this first premise. In fact,
atheist Quentin Smith’s contention that “we came from nothing, by nothing, and
for nothing” seems intuitively absurd.
Second,
the universe had a beginning. Based on the data, virtually all cosmologists now
agree the universe began in the Big Bang at some specific point in the past.
Craig stressed that even alternate theories for the origin of the universe
require a beginning. For instance, Stephen Hawking’s use of “imaginary numbers”
merely conceals the beginning point in his own model, which Hawking admits is
not really a description of reality.
The conclusion then follows inexorably from the
two premises: therefore, the universe has a cause. Even once-agnostic
astronomer Robert Jastrow conceded the essential elements of Christianity and
modern cosmology are the same: “The chain of events leading to man commenced
suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and
energy.
The evidence of Physics
One of the most striking discoveries of modern
science has been that the laws and constants of physics unexpectedly conspire
in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life. For instance, physicist-philosopher Robin Collins says that gravity
is fine-tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion
billion. The cosmological constant, which represents the energy density of
space, is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bulls-eye just
a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on Earth.
One
expert said there are more than thirty physical or cosmological parameters that
require precise calibration in order to produce a universe that can sustain
life. Collins demonstrated that chance cannot reasonably account for this
“anthropic principle” and that the most-discussed alternative—that there are
multiple universes—lacks any evidential support and ultimately collapses upon
the realization that these worlds would owe their existence to a highly
designed process.
This evidence was so powerful that it was
instrumental in Patrick Glynn abandoning his atheism. “Today the concrete data
point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis,” he said. “It is the
simplest and most obvious solution to the anthropic puzzle.”
The evidence of
Astronomy
Similar to the fine-tuning of physics, Earth’s
position in the universe and its intricately choreographed geological and
chemical processes work together with exquisite efficiency to create a safe
place for humans to live.
For example, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and
science philosopher Jay Wesley Richards said it would take a star with the
highly unusual properties of our sun—the right mass, the right light, the right
age, the right distance, the right orbit, the right galaxy, the right
location—to nurture living organisms on a circling planet.
Numerous factors
make our solar system and our location in the universe just right for a habitable
environment. What’s more, the exceptional conditions that make life possible
also happen to make our planet strangely well-suited for viewing and analyzing
the universe and our environment. All of this suggests our planet may be rare,
if not unique, and that the Creator wanted us to be able to explore the cosmos.
“If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could
never have come into existence,” said Harvard-educated astrophysicist John A.
O’Keefe of NASA. “It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe
was created for man to live in.”
The evidence of
Biochemistry
Darwin said, “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.” Biochemist Michael Behe has demonstrated exactly that through his
description of “irreducibly complex” molecular machines.
These complicated, microscopic contraptions, such
as cilia and bacterial flagella, are extremely unlikely to have been built
piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes, because they had to be fully
present in order to function. Other examples include the incredible system of
transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood-clotting.
More than just a devastating challenge to
Darwinism, these amazing biological systems—which far exceed the capacity of
human technology—point toward a transcendent Creator. “My conclusion,” said
Behe, “can be summed up in a single word: design. I say that based on science.
I believe that irreducibly complex systems are strong evidence of a purposeful,
intentional design by an intelligent agent.” Behe’s argument has proven
impervious to challenges by skeptics. While obviously there will be future
discoveries in biochemistry, Behe pointed out that they will not be able to
negate the complexity that has already been discovered—and which is best
explained by a creator.
The evidence of
Biological Information
The six-feet of DNA coiled inside every one of
our body’s one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet
that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which
our bodies are made.
Cambridge-educated Stephen Meyer demonstrated
that no hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into
biological matter by naturalistic means. On the contrary, he said that whenever
we find a sequential arrangement that’s complex and corresponds to an
independent pattern or function, this kind of information is always the product
of intelligence. “Books, computer codes, and DNA all have these two
properties,” he said. “We know books and computer codes are designed by
intelligence, and the presence of this type of information in DNA also implies
an intelligent source.”
In addition, Meyer said the Cambrian explosion’s
array of new life forms, which suddenly appeared fully formed in the fossil
record, with no prior transitions, would have required the infusion of massive
amounts of new biological information. “Information is the hallmark of mind,”
said Meyer. “And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer
the existence of a mind that’s far greater than our own—a conscious,
purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who’s amazingly creative.”
The evidence of
Consciousness
Many
scientists are concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain
our experience of consciousness. Professor J. P. Moreland defined consciousness
as our introspection, sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs, and
free choices that make us alive and aware. The “soul” contains our consciousness
and animates our body.
According to a researcher who showed that consciousness
can continue after a person’s brain has stopped functioning, current scientific
findings “would the view that ‘mind,’ ‘consciousness,’ or the ‘soul’ is a
separate entity from the brain.” As Moreland said, “You can’t get something
from nothing.” If the universe began with dead matter having no conscious,
“how, then, do you get something totally different—consciousness, living,
thinking, feeling, believing creatures—from materials that don’t have that?”
But if everything started with the mind of God, he said, “we don’t have a
problem with explaining the origin of our mind.” Darwinist philosopher Michael
Ruse candidly conceded that “no one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems
to have any answer” to the consciousness issue. Nobel Prize–winning
neurophysiologist John C. Eccles concluded from the evidence “that there is
what we might call a supernatural origin of my unique self-conscious mind or my
unique selfhood or soul.”
The case have
been made. All the evidence have been presented. If you were sitting on a jury,
what would you choose? Considering all the evidence brought forward, will YOU
conclude that there is a creator or not?
Find the
truth and remember….. Have an intelligent faith!!!
-Nelis
taken from The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God
