This post is the third in a series introducing the logical and intellectual foundation for creationism. To read the first post, click here. This series will be followed by another introducing the biblical foundation for creationism. Lastly, there will be a third series comparing creationism theories with what we observe in our universe. This will form a complete case for biblical creationism.
Reverend A. W. Tozer said, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.“[ref]A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (New York: HarperCollins, 1961), 1.[/ref] Well, how much you agree probably depends on what you think about God! But here’s something we can all agree on:
What belief system we choose to hold is incredibly important.
The ramifications for what belief system we choose are widespread. It will impact our lifestyle choices, views on morals and society, and relationships. The consequences also extend past our personal lives. The belief system held by a particular scientist will heavily influence any conclusion he draws. When the science is largely dependent upon inference and deduction, the belief system may be the primary determinant of the outcome! That scientist’s hypothesis may be built upon with new hypotheses from other scientists, and if the institutions of society view these scientists as credible, these teachings will be heralded to the public.
So the worldviews held by society’s individuals are indeed incredibly important. They go full circle: they impact the individual and their localized world, they shape groups’ conclusions, certain groups influence society’s educational institutions, and these institutions help shape the individuals’ worldviews.
In modern day America, there are two primary worldviews which are certainly at odds with each other: evolutionary naturalism and biblical Christianity.
Biblical Christianity is the belief that God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible is the God of the universe. He alone is God, He created the universe, and the Bible is His inspired and inerrant revelation to man.
Naturalism is defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.”[ref]https://www.google.com/search?q=naturalism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&safe=active. Google search “naturalism”.[/ref]
What is “evolutionary naturalism?” Evolutionary naturalism is the branch of historical science which arises from the naturalistic worldview. And do you remember my term for historical science? It was philosophical science! The connection should be very clear. It is the worldview which gives rise to the conclusions and theories of that branch of “science” (since the inferences and deductions are dependent upon the worldview). Naturalism is often billed as a “science-based” worldview.[ref]http://www.naturalism.org/[/ref] But the opposite is true. Naturalism is responsible for the theories of evolutionary science!
So which worldview is superior? Which one should be adopted by scientists?
There are two main arguments for naturalism. First, naturalism should be the worldview held by non-religious institutions because it is not based on a particular religion. Second, it should be used by science in particular because science cannot measure anything supernatural. On the surface, these are both strong arguments. It is my opinion, however, that the second is far stronger than the first.
In regards to the first argument, there is a fallacious assumption. Naturalism is considered an “unbiased” or “objective” worldview because it is not based on a particular religion such as Christianity. But assuming God’s nonexistence is just as strong of a religious statement as assuming He does exist. It is impossible to say naturalism is “areligious” (a common synonym for secular). Naturalism is an assumption set which specifically addresses the role God or any other spiritual beings play. It rules them out from having any impact on our universe whatsoever. The neutrality of naturalism and secularism have been great lies sold to society. It’s actually impossible to avoid religious bias. Naturalism is not some sort of middle-ground where people can group together. It is a very specific belief system which opposes what the vast majority of individuals believe.
Now for the second argument, there is some truth to it. Why should science be considering what it cannot measure? Here’s the answer: in philosophical science, scientists are already considering much which they cannot measure. They can observe geological features present today, for example, but they cannot directly measure or observe the past events which left them. Whenever any sort of inference and deduction based reasoning is done, there are certain things being assumed. What is important is for those involved to decide which assumption set is the most reasonable. If believing in the supernatural is found to be more reasonable than believing in its nonexistence, then that should be reflected in the assumption set. Therefore, if observations of our universe suggest it is more reasonable to assume in the existence of God, then that is the best assumption for scientists to hold.
The rest of this post will be spent determining if it is more reasonable to assume God does or does not exist. Let me make one quick disclaimer. We will simply be saying arguments for the existence of anything supernatural imply God exists which implies the Christian God is this God. Obviously, we are skipping a few steps. We won’t be explaining in detail why the supernatural implies an all-powerful God and why the Christian God is this God. There are people who believe in the supernatural but not a god, or in a god but not the Christian God. An example of the latter would be “Deists.” These missing links will be covered in future posts. For the sake of brevity, we will simply treat arguments for the supernatural as arguments for the God of the Bible.
Does the Universe Suggest the Existence of God?
Intelligent Design
This may be the most well-known argument for the existence of God. When we examine the universe, there is no escaping how it appears to be designed to a high degree. This points to the existence of a Grand Designer – i.e. God.
Normally an analogy is provided to help explain this theory. Suppose you were walking through a corn field and found a pocket watch. The intricacy and systematization within the watch would cause you to conclude it had been assembled by an intelligent being – even if you had never seen one before. Why? The organized arrangement of the specific parts (and materials comprising the parts) would seem too intricate for the watch to be the result of a random sequence of events. There must have been some intelligent force which directed the composition. Finally, you would conclude the intelligent source to be a human, since no other life on earth seems capable of such a mental feat.
Our universe is immeasurably more intricate than a watch. Our universe consists of system within system within system – all governed by a set of universal and constant laws of physics.[ref]Fun Fact #1: Did you know belief in God was the assumption which caused scientists to hypothesize a constant set of laws could exist which govern our universe? Yes, they were believed to be plausible because they could be maintained and upheld by a sovereign God. Hebrews 1:3 says God “upholds the universe by the word of His power.” Isaac Newton, the grandfather of modern science, was a biblical creationist who believed in the Christian God. Science is said to conflict with religion, when Christianity gave rise to science![/ref] Together the individual parts work together to form the grandest symphony in existence.[ref]Fun Fact #2: Genesis 1 says God spoke the universe into existence. Speech creates sound, and sound in the common vernacular is simply electromagnetic waves which our ears can hear. Technically all waves are a form of sound; we just can’t hear all the sounds. Well, quantum physics has a theory called Wave-Particle Duality. It states all things are both particles and waves. Interesting: our universe is comprised of waves, and the Bible claims God spoke it into existence! It couldn’t fit better![/ref] These laws are incredibly fine-tuned. Slight adjustments and not even one molecule would form together – let alone stars, planets, and life forms. Tiny changes to the location of our solar system or planet and life on earth would cease to be.
For everything besides our universe, the appearance of design leads to unanimous agreement on the existence of a designer. Yet where the level of design is grandest, many are eager to deny the existence of our Maker. Why? This has been a very brief look at the argument of Intelligent Design. Later we will revisit its strongest example: the existence of life. Then we will answer this question!
Morality/Good & Evil
Many people hold belief systems but fail to thoroughly examine their consequences. Here is where the realities of a naturalistic universe really begin to become uncomfortable. If naturalism is correct, then nothing exists except for matter, space, time, and energy. Therefore, morals do not exist. They are not comprised of anything “natural”, but are a metaphysical reality.
In other words, if the naturalistic explanation of the universe is correct, then nothing is really right or wrong. There exists no good or evil. Humans can band together and agree among themselves that a certain action is “wrong”, but this is only true to the extent that they agree so. Intrinsically, there is nothing wrong with theft, rape, murder, and the like. Most of us have a serious problem with this. We believe rape is wrong. And not because we simply say it is – we believe the act to be inherently evil.
If you believe true right and wrong exist – that “right” and “wrong” are not arbitrary labels made up by humans, then you are already admitting naturalism is false. Naturalism does not allow for the existence of moral laws.
The existence of evil is one of the most well-known arguments against God’s existence. It seems reasonable, but the existence of evil is actually proof for God. Doubt this? Click here to see Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason break it down.
Free Will
Almost everyone believes in the existence of free will. We believe we are free to choose our decisions. Do you like the sound of being a slave to your inheritance and surroundings? A pre-programmed creature with no real control over your life? A collection of cells which use chemical and electrical reactions in your brains to make decisions for you in the response to certain stimuli, all while giving you the illusion that it is you making the decision? Sounds pretty unappealing, right? Well this is exactly the case if naturalism and evolution are true.
On May 17 of 2016, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science published an article titled “There’s No Such Thing as Free Will.” The longer version was published in the Atlantic, and its subtitle is: “But we’re better off believing in it anyway.” You may question my assertion in the paragraph above, but the naturalists themselves admit this is a consequence of their worldview.
I highly suggest you read the Atlantic’s version of the article. Determinism is defined as “the belief that all events are caused by things that happened before them and that people have no real ability to make choices or control what happens.”[ref]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determinism[/ref] They mention a particular scientific experiment as evidence for determinism:
Many scientists say that the American physiologist Benjamin Libet demonstrated in the 1980s that we have no free will. It was already known that electrical activity builds up in a person’s brain before she, for example, moves her hand; Libet showed that this buildup occurs before the person consciously makes a decision to move. The conscious experience of deciding to act, which we usually associate with free will, appears to be an add-on, a post hoc reconstruction of events that occurs after the brain has already set the act in motion.[ref]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/[/ref]
Interesting to say the least. So are the naturalists correct? Do we have no free will? Not necessarily! There may be a missing component of the observation. I believe there is a spiritual element to our decision making. Look at what Scripture says of unbelievers: “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” (Rom 2:15). When Scripture refers to the human heart, it is referring not to the physical organ but the “spiritual part of us where our emotions and desires dwell.”[ref]http://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-the-heart.html[/ref] Jesus Himself said, “what comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come” (Mk. 7:20-21a). These verses speak two important truths. First, moral laws certainly do exist: God has written them on our hearts. Second, our spiritual nature influences our decision making. Therefore, when scientists conduct experiments which cannot account for the spiritual, their findings will sometimes be incomplete.
Now I challenge you to take a step back and really examine your belief system. In a naturalistic universe, first, there was nothing. Then it exploded.[ref]I must give credit to Chuck Missler of Koinonia House for this characterization of the Big Bang.[/ref] This explosion eventually resulted in the universe as we know it today. Millions of years ago, there was a pond full of various compounds on earth. Lightning struck this pond, and then the first life form was cobbled together.[ref]This is one of the leading propositions for the impetus which led to the creation of the first life form.[/ref] This life form was simply an arrangement of various molecules just like those in the water and surrounding rocks. These molecules had a unique property, however – they could make copies of themselves. But they were still just a collection of molecules. They simply happened to be formed together in a way which gave them different properties than the collections of molecules comprising water and rocks.
Through millions of years of random changes to the genetic programming (wait?! – How’d a lightning bolt write a programming code in a collection of molecules?!?! More on this in a second…), the single celled organism’s offspring eventually grew to become the species of humans. As a human, you still are nothing more than a unique arrangement of molecules. Instead of being a rock, your molecules are arranged in a way which gives you DNA, a cardiovascular system, a nervous system, skin and your other organs, your brain, etc. But your brain is simply a collection of molecules which arbitrarily make decisions for you based on the reactions taking place which are governed by the laws of physics. These reactions cause you to think. They even cause you to believe you are making the decisions they are! But really, you’re nothing more than a unique arrangement of elements. Your life is meaningless.
This is what evolutionary naturalism says about the universe and your existence. You have no free will. Your life has no meaning.
If you reject the previous statements, then you must reject naturalism. And if you reject naturalism for your personal life, then why would you ever subscribe to a scientific set of theories which have naturalism as their foundation?
God exists. Good exists. Evil is real. And your life has value.
The Existence of Life
Life is the greatest testament to God’s existence. When Charles Darwin penned Origin of Species, the scientific community had no idea how complex the most simple life forms are. Today we know their complexity, and the idea that a collection of molecules could have randomly been assorted to form the first life form requires more faith than Christianity ever has or ever will. Allow me to highlight the main components of a single celled organism which is the most simple life form in existence.
- The cell has a cell wall which allows in certain molecules while blocking others. At the same time, the cell wall allows certain molecules from inside the cell to exit, while containing others.
- The cell has mitochondria, which are basically an organic form of a power plant.
- The cell has the most complex informational code in existence. Yes, DNA is millions of times more complex than any computer code humans have ever written.
- This code has a storage mechanism, a reading mechanism, a copying mechanism, and a repair mechanism.
Here is one of the key quotes from Origin of Species:
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.
Here’s the problem! A single celled organism is an example of exactly that! If you take away just one of the bullet points from above, the entire cell would fall apart and cease to be able to live and reproduce. So instead of having a slow succession of different stages leading to the first life form, the first life form necessitates a level of complexity beyond what can be reasonably expected to be the result of random actions. Let’s take a closer look at DNA.
DNA is an organic information code. Its existence should have immediately led to the disavowal of naturalism from every single self-respecting scientist. It is the most complex informational code in existence. And in addition to having DNA, a living cell has distinct biological systems for storing, reading, copying, and repairing the DNA. Once again, this absolutely disproves Darwin’s theory! The DNA subset of a living organism could not possibly be the result of “numerous, successive, slight modifications.” Instead, the code itself, the storing mechanism, the reading mechanism, the copying mechanism, and the repairing mechanism, would have had to all come into existence simultaneously (along with the power plant to power their functions and the cell wall to contain and protect them). The nature of the most simple form of life is the exact opposite of what Darwin’s theory requires: instead of being a very simple starting step it is incredibly complex. A single celled organism is more complicated than anything humans have ever built. Yet we are incredulous enough to believe it was not the result of an intelligent being?
Believing a lightning bolt could have struck a pond and created the first life form is like believing a bolt of lightning could strike a pile of scrap metal and simultaneously create a computer and program its operating system. Of course this sounds absurd, but this is actually a less complicated rearrangement of the materials involved!
And it gets worse…
Darwin’s book was published in 1859. But something else very important in the scientific community also happened in 1859: Louis Pasteur’s experiment disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Wikipedia defines spontaneous generation as “an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.”[ref]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation[/ref] After Pasteur disproved this theory, he proposed the law of biogenesis, which is defined as “the conclusion that complex living things come only from other living things, by reproduction. That is, modern life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.”[ref]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis[/ref]
But this is exactly what the theory of evolution requires! This is literally insane. There is a law of science which says that all life arises from other life and none of it arises from non-living material. This theory is within the branch of observable science, as it is based on evidence from observable, repeatable experiments conducted by Louis Pasteur. On the other hand, the leading scientific theory about the origin and development of life requires the spontaneous generation of the first life form from non-living material, in direct contradiction with the law of biogenesis.
Are scientists aware of this glaring contradiction? Yes, of course they are. So why does the law of biogenesis not disprove evolution? The answer is very simple. They do not want there to be a God. This is easily demonstrated from prominent scientists’ own words. From H. J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester, UK:
If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.[ref]”A Physicist looks at evolution” Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138.[/ref]
And now from George Wald, former Professor Emeritus of Harvard and a Nobel Prize winner in Biology:
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a “philosophical necessity”. It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.
I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.[ref]”The Origin of Life” Scientific American, August 1954, pg. 45.[/ref]
It should now be unmistakably obvious how much one’s worldview impacts their “science.” Lipson, to his credit, barely admits life must have been created, but acknowledges how that is “anathema to physicists.” If it is what the experimental evidence supports, why would it be anathema to any branch of scientists?
Wald, however, doubles-down in the insanity. He claims before Pasteur’s experiments spontaneous generation was the reasonable view. Why? Out of philosophical necessity. In other words, in order for their worldviews to work! He then complains that scientists who are honest enough to admit spontaneous generation has been disproven are “left with nothing.”
If there are only two options, as Wald admits, and one of the options has been disproven, why should scientists not go with the other option? (As Lipson resentfully did). Instead, Wald simply places his head in the sand and says, “I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.” The reason there is no other choice has nothing to do with scientific legitimacy. In fact, there is evidence from repeatable experiments which point to creation being the source of life! I thought good scientists were all about following the evidence wherever it leads? Well yes, that’s what good scientists do. But most modern scientists have not been “good” in this sense. Instead, they have been hacks for their godless worldview, moving forward blindly despite evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
There are many reasons to believe in the existence of the supernatural. A purely naturalistic universe leads to a deterministic, useless existence; denies the existence of a designer despite evidence to the contrary; and has absolutely no satisfactory explanation for the origin of life. Naturalism is heralded as the neutral standard for modern society, but it is not unbiased. Instead, it is a very religious belief system which denies the existence of God.
If you are Christian, why would you ever believe in the Big Bang or evolution? These two scientific theories are not the result of unbiased, experimental research. Instead, they are answers to this question: “Assuming God does not exist, how could all of this have came to be?” So if you believe in God, stop believing in scientific theories which have at their heart the nonexistence of God!
And if you are not a Christian, I deeply and sincerely thank you for reading this piece. You stepped outside of your comfort zone, and many people are hesitant to do so. During Jesus’ ministry on earth, he said several variations of, “he who has ears, let him hear” (Matt. 11:15). God has given you every reason necessary to believe He is Lord. “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork” (Ps. 19:1). Do you have ears to hear? Or eyes to see? Or will you be like Professor Wald, who shut his mind for philosophical reasons? When we deny God because of our own philosophy/beliefs, we are basically telling Him we know better than Him. We have our own idea about the way things should be, and if He doesn’t conform to our beliefs, then He can go shove it.
I can’t think of a more arrogant thing to do than for man to tell His Maker that he knows better than Him. Yet humans have been doing it for thousands of years (Is. 29:16). God is real. The universe points to His existence. And He loves you and cares for you. All of us have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). And that is why God sent His Son Jesus Christ.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him. (Jn. 3:16-17).
Humans are eager to be their own gods. But acknowledging God is the best thing you could ever do. It doesn’t matter who you’ve been or what you’ve done. God desires to have a personal relationship with you. He paid the penalty for your sin, suffering a death by crucifixion despite living the perfect life we could not live. And for those who believe in their heart and confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, they will be saved (Rom. 10:9).
Have ears to hear. Have eyes to see. The universe declares the existence of God.
Naturalism is dead. God is alive.