This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.
- Sir Isaac Newton
The disciplines of science and medicine provide a panoramic view into the wonder and complexity of creation. From biology to chemistry, physics to cosmology evidence of design compounds exponentially.
Such astounding insights into the intricacies of our universe begs a singular question. Are we and all we see the product of a Designer or does it just appear that way? Is the universe perfectly fine tuned for the existence of man or vice versa?
Day to day it largely goes unnoticed. Waking and eating, working and playing we hardly give it a second thought. Seeming to have little or nothing to do with human relationships, what bearing could answering such an esoteric question as that of Intelligent Design have on our quality of earthly, much less eternal life?
In actuality, the answer is the basis of everything.
The question is as important as it is fundamental. Ultimately creation is the handiwork of Omnity, (Self Existing and Immutable Being(s) possessing Omniscience, Omnipresent and Omnipotence) or the result an incalculable conjunction of random chance.
Consciously or not, the answer we select becomes the basis of how we choose to perceive life. Most, if not all the major decisions under our control are influenced by whether we believe God exists or we are a cosmic coincidence. If we accept the former as true, we open ourselves to the responsibility and privilege of discovering the nature and plans of such a glorious and eternal Creator. If the latter, we see ourselves alone in a vast universe, unrestrained and obviously free to "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."
Interestingly, such diametrically opposed opinions not only exist but flourish in the face of overwhelming modern discovery. In fact, it's been estimated that information pertinent to this debate increases by a factor of a million every month, yet within certain circles of the scientific community the issue remains as hotly contested as ever.
Proponents for a Divine Creator point to over 100 parameters within our observable universe without which human life would be impossible. For example, mass and dark energy are the physical features governing expansion. If the universe were expanding too quickly, there could be no formation of the vast array of galaxies, stars or planets. Too slow an expansion rate and gravity would collapse the gas throughout the universe into "nothing but black holes and neutron stars." Intelligent life required the right kind of galaxies, stars and planets to appear at the right time in cosmic history. In the case of Dark energy alone, the fine tuning requirements "exceeds the best human engineering design by a factor of 10 to the 98th power."
Supporters of the argument for cosmological origin based on chance and subsequent evolution of life on earth solely through natural selection reverse engineer the explanation. Rather than believing in a designed anthropic principal, they concur that given enough resource space time, matter and energy would assemble itself into some form of advance life mimicking the appearance of design.
What's undeniable is that the statistics against unguided evolution alone accounting for mankind's existence are staggering. Even when ignoring the impossible odds against there being a single planet with earth like conditions necessary for the appearance of rudimentary life forms, the odds of bacteria producing human life through natural selection alone have been estimated at 10 to the 1,000,000th power.
Presented with continuous and conclusive research that our ancient and vast universe alone is too limited to account for our existence, those opposing Intelligent Design often embrace such theories as that of a Mulitverse to find the necessary resource. Yet even should such a theory prove testable and true, the most fundamental of questions still remains. What or Who created the Multiverse?
In point of fact, for anything, much less everything to such elegantly exist, either it must be predated by a creative cause or be eternal. Neither our observable universe or any number of Mulitverses could have originated from nothing. Expressed mathematically the formula is as simple as 0 (Nothing) + 0 (Nothing) = 0 (Nothing). Any creation theory ignoring this premise is based on deductive fallacy.
Such elementary math posses an eternal problem for the atheist by providing proof positive for the existence of God. It does no good to propose that inanimate objects, regardless of size and/or age are themselves eternal. For our or any universe(s) to be given such status is equivalent to Divinity. As previously stated, Pre or Self Existence is the first of the five characteristics defining the Divine, and that from which omniscience (all knowledge), omnipotence (all power), omnipresence (being everywhere at once) and immutability (unchangeableness) must be said to flow. Here is not only the fundamental flaw in the reservoir of theories that exclude a Creator from creation's equation but the Answer to the constant dripping complaint "who created God?"
Honest science and reason unseats the atheist but not the agnostic. While creation is proof of a Creator, it must be noted that given current limitations, who the Creator is, if such knowledge is even possible, cannot be proven. Even if God has already been made known, a dozen world religions with over five million adherents each comprised of numerous sects and subsects make identifying the true nature of Omnity problematic at best. As with attempts to understand all life's ultimate questions, genuine efforts to research and review this issue requires reasonable and rational presentation and examination of all the evidence at hand.
This being said, there is a mountain of growing evidence for Biblical inspiration. Since Josh McDowell first published "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" incredible scientific discoveries in every disciple including biology and chemistry, physics and cosmology continue to attest to the existence of the God of the Bible. Furthermore, unique and overwhelming prophetic veracity as well as unfolding events from the Book of Revelation provide compelling statical evince for Scriptural authority.
Because of certain subjective aspects regarding speculation into the origin of existence, inquiries divorced from prejudice serve best. Yet each of us, by nature, develops a personal point of view constantly being reshaped by whatever larger perception of the world we embrace. Such preferences may be created and reinforced by thoughts and feelings arising from personal circumstance and that of society at large. For example, the Catholic Church's harsh rejection and denunciation of Galileo's theories arose from what they would later admit were rash religious preconceptions.
Unfortunately, there are still vast numbers of Christians, as well as participants in other religions, making the same mistake. Millions adhere to antiquated concepts and mythologies that create an unnecessary divide between faith and reason. Young Earth theology is a prime example of what has become an untenuous Biblical interpretation in light of improved science and hermeneutics. Nevertheless many otherwise educated and enlightened individuals and Christian communities insist on an overly literal interoperation of the use of the word "yôm" or "day" in first chapter of Genesis when in Biblical Hebrew the word can also mean a long yet determinate length of the time, in keeping with other Scriptural creation accounts and current scientific research.
Dr. Hugh Ross and the staff of Reasons To Believe, leading proponents of excellence in scientific and Scriptural interpretation, are a primary source of information on this and additional topics. See links below for an overview of Young vs. Old Earth arguments:
- The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth Introduction
- The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth Part 1
- The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth Part 2
- The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth Part 3
- The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth Part 4
- The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth Part 5
- The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth Part 6
- The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth Part 7
- The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth Part 8
Disingenuous scientific conclusions can be equally misleading. It's easy to see how funding concerns and societal pressure have long favored a solely naturalistic interpretation of data. Additionally, individually and collectively most if not all researchers have unresolved issues or anger with God in regards to Omnity's apparent goodness and justice. Understandably, frustration and pain arising from loneliness and loss, disease and death could impede legitimate research.
Classic Debate
Of the hundreds or even thousands of public debates on the topic of origin, dozens have received some level of notoriety. Of these, a handful bare noting for both their salient points and occasion for commentary.
Perhaps the most famous work is the 2008 documentary "Expelled: No Intellegence Allowed." As noted in Wikipedia: "The film contends that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis as a mainstream conspiracy to keep God out of science laboratories and classrooms."
While opponents found the film somewhat lacking in objectivity, the documentary nonetheless provides concise arguments from prominent professionals of both persuasions. Comments on and off screen also afford insight into the intellectual and emotional state of interviewees.
The most telling was Ben Stein's discussion with noted atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins. Earning five doctorates and awarded five more, in Dr. Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" the world's leading skeptic reveals a quite unflattering opinion on the Judeo-Christian God:
"Yahweh: "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, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Dr. Dawkins' opinion regarding Christ's' costly atonement fares little better: "I have described the atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity as vicious, sadomasochistic and repellant. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for it's ubiquitous familiarity having dulled our objectivity."
Such quotes shed some light on the Dr. Dawkins predisposition against Divine Intelligent Design. Below is a partial transcript of Expelled: No Intellegence Allowed finale interview between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins (see video):
STEIN: Professor Dawkins, you seem so convinced that God doesn’t exist I wondered if you would be willing to put a number on it?
DAWKINS: Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.
STEIN: Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent?
DAWKINS: I don’t…
STEIN: and not, say, ninety-seven percent?
DAWKINS: You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.
STEIN: So it could be forty-nine percent?
DAWKINS: Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.
STEIN: How do you know?
DAWKINS: I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book.
STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer… Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
STEIN: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.
STEIN: So the Hebrew God, the God of the Old Testament. He doesn't exist in your view?
DAWKINS: Certainly. That would be a very unpleasant prospect.
STEIN: And the Holy Trinity of the New Testament?
DAWKINS: Nothing like that.
STEIN: Do you believe in any of the Hindu Gods? Like Vishnu?
DAWKINS: How could you ask such a question? How could I? Why would I given I don't believe in any of the others?
STEIN: You don't believe in the Muslim God?
DAWKINS: No. And why do you even need to ask?
STEIN: Well I just wanted to be sure. So you don't believe with any God anywhere?
DAWKINS: Any God anywhere would be completely incompatible with anything I've said.
STEIN: What if after you died you ran into God, and he says, what have you been doing, Richard? I mean what have you been doing? I've been trying to be nice to you. I gave you a multi-million dollar paycheck, over and over again with your book, and look what you did.
DAWKINS: Bertrand Russell had that point put to him, and he said something like: sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?
STEIN: But, if the Intelligent Design people are right, he isn't hidden. We may even be able to encounter God through science, if we have the freedom to go there. What could be more intriguing than that?
Ben Stein's "Expelled" is worth watching for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is to detect subtle yet ever present hints at what has always been the greatest objection to attributing the existence of creation to a Creator. By accident or design "Expelled" leaves on the cutting room floor all but trace evidence of mortal man's universal disappointment and resentment against God. For all extensive purposes Al Pacino in "The Devil's Advocate" makes a point when accusing, however maliciously Omnity for appearing an "absentee Landlord." Undeniably, humanity's issues with God echo through millennia. Yet Stein touches on the volatile subject only lightly, as when including Richard Dawkins final remarks when asked what response he might give should God ask the reason for his intense opposition to the existence of a Creator. Without missing a beat he immediately responds by quoting Bertrand Russell: "sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?"
Ben wryly points out the fallacious nature of such logic in regards to Intelligent Design. Yet the astute must learn to see past scientific facade. Surely, thousands of some of the most brilliant minds of modern times are capable of doing math as simple as "0 (nothing) + 0 (nothing) = 0 (nothing). As previously explained, the existence of anything, much less everything so intricately constructed in our ancient and massive Universe clearly predisposed to human existence is positive proof of divine creation. Regardless of the form of argumentation, what is truly in debate is not God's existence but goodness.
Telling Arguments
A far lessor known yet revealing debate regarding evidence of a Creator reinforces the tenor of this article. The rather one sided match up was showcased by "Unbelievable" with Justin Brierley between astro physicist Hugh Ross and atheist biologist Lewis Wolpert at Imperial College of London in 2012.
After a compelling opening argument by Reasons To Believe founder Dr. Hugh Ross, Professor Lewis Wolpert's response was lacking in both science and persuasion. A repeat guest on Justin Brierley's show, neither Dr. Wolpert's education in civil engineering, soil mechanics and cell biology nor his position of Emeritus Professor of Biology at University College London served him well. Dr. Wolpert is also author of several scientific and research publications, including his own experience of clinical depression in Malignant Sadness: The Anatomy of Depression (1999). He presented three television programs based on the book and entitled A Living Hell on BBC2. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1980 and awarded the CBE in 1990. He became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1999. He serves as a Vice-President of the British Humanist Association.
Professor Wolperts impressive credentials and experience notwithstanding, his comments hinged almost entirely upon what he didn't know. His opening comment was "I'm not a physicist. And I cannot see in any meaningful sensible way in which physics tells you anything about God." The unfortunate logic of such a statement is completely untenable. Stating his ignorance of physics, he then declares physics which is broadly defined by Wikipedia as "the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves" totally irrelevant regarding evidence for Intelligent Design.
Dr. Wolpert then directs his objection to the existence of God by addressing the philosophy of theological. Again, rather than presenting arguments from his chosen field, he reminds "there are probably about twenty major religions in the world and can you please… what's the evidence that your's in right and theirs is wrong."
Professor' Wolpert's confident and congenial habit of continually straying from his scientific expertise provides a glimpse into the mind of much of modern academia. He, as do many, find it far easier to dismiss the existence of God as immature reason and mythology of "mystical minds" groping for signs of causality within the human experience rather than deal with the exponential growth of facts and statistics favoring design.
He does raise a salient point nonetheless. Christians, particularly leaders in the faith, should be keenly aware of and able to answer such foundational yet often unspoken objections. In fact, there are at least Seven Ultimate Questions every human being should become extremely familiar with during our short and often perilous mortal existence. Doing disarms common issues with God, providing invaluable assistance in both evangelism and discipleship.
Dr. Wolpert offers both the Young Earth seven twenty four hour day interpretation of Genesis, previously mentioned, and the account of Eve's creation from Adam's rib as examples of "so many things in the Bible that bear no relationship to biology and the nature of science." Atheist and agnostic suggest such arguments make overturning the concept of divine Biblical inspiration as simply as shooting fish in a barrel. Yet these overlook much, not the least of which is the creative agency responsible for the fish and barrel as well as all that is. Additionally marginalized is supremacy of scriptural Christianity to all other world religions as well as a myriad points of harmony between ancient Biblical teachings and modern discoveries. Add to this Scripture's unique record of the fulfillment of thousands of prophecies and the statistics against super-natural inspiration of its authors, all of which had less scientific understanding that the average middle school student, becomes indeed staggering.
Dr. Hugh Ross, as has been his custom for decades, quickly offers an in-depth scientific rationale for every objection. Yet in at least on case he seems to miss the mark. During the question and answer phase, Professor Wolpert asks for an example of accurate Biblical prediction. Dr. Ross's site Reason.org offers an article mentioning 2,000 fulfilled prophecies. Of thirteen summarized the author notes "Since these thirteen prophecies cover mostly separate and independent events, the probability of chance occurrence for all thirteen is about 1 in 10138." Unfortunately, Dr. Ross chooses to expound on the universe's cosmological expansion rate. While keeping with the topic at hand, such an technical example substantiated by subjective interpretation hardly does justice to a question millions if not billions are and should be asking.
A more easily understood example may have stood in better stead. Perhaps one from the annals of history:
- Alexander The Great Destroys Tyre: In a unique military move, Alexander the Great levels the coastal town of Tyre, tossing it's every stone and timber into the sea to build a land bridge the maritime city off the coast as was predicted and recorded centuries prior in Ezekiel 26:4,12 and 14.
- Israel Reappears After 2,000 Years: The nation of Israel is a key player in Revelation's drama, yet in the Apostle John's day Israel was being ground under the boot of Rome, a global power showing no signs of weakening. For John to suggest Israel would become the center of world wide attention was ludicrous. All the more so after 70 A.D. when the Romans literally wiped it off the map. Yet in 1947 A.D. Israel reappeared in the same location. Never before or since has a nation having vanished for two centuries, much less two millennia, suddenly reemerged so. Israel's resurrection as a nation, not to mention it's global status, is unprecedented in human history. Adding to Israel's miraculous modern history is the unbridled hostility of billions of Muslims, hundreds of millions of which all but surround the small plot of land Israel resides on. About the size of San Bernardino County in the Los Angles basin, Israel's population has been as little as 3 million. The Muslim nations nearby occupy as much territory as the United States, with over 300 million and yet in every war and conflict Israel has not only survived but conquered it's attackers. The odds of just this one fulfillment of Biblical prophecy are astronomical.
Additional Examples
Another debate featured Dr. Richard Dawkins and the world renown figure, Dr. Francis Collins an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Featured in Time Magazine, both a transcript is available on Dawkins site.
In a tag team match billed as Science vs Faith, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett conducted a 2006 panel discussion/debated with Francis Collins and Benjamin Carson. YouTube audio available.
A three-way debate took place in 2001 between Duane Gish, vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research, defended the young-earth creationist model; Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, defended the naturalistic (nonetheistic) evolutionary model; and Hugh Ross defending Reasons To Believe’s old-earth creation model. The debate, entitled God, Darwin, or…Both? Video available here.
Reason To Believe Articles:
- Is Faith Reasonable
- Design or Appearance?
- Fantastic Fine Tuning
- Biochemical Design
- Life Design
- Origin of Life
- Earth's First Life
- Primordial Soup
- Human Intelligence
- Earth-Moon Design
- Age of Earth
- Solar System Design
- Age of Solar System
- Rare Sun
- Small Extrasolar Water World
- Origin of Comets
- Galaxy Design
- Universe Design
- Massive Stars Seed Life
- Creation of First Stars
- Multiverse Theory
- Is it God or Multiverse?
- Scriptures on Creation
More information
In the Red Dropdown Icon you'll find resources that we hope will both stimulate and facilitate your pursuit of and understanding of the God of the Bible. To get started simply place your cursor on a category of interest and see where it leads. You can also join the discussion in a variety of ways including posting comments to God Blogs as well as making comments or asking questions by email or text.
Copyright 2018 All Rights Reserved