Share
A- A A+
Free Email News
The Creation Answers Book
by Various

US $9.00
View Item
By Design
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

US $15.00
View Item
Chemicals to Living Cell: Fantasy or Science? DVD
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

US $13.00
View Item
Codes and Creation DVD
by Calvin Smith

US $13.00
View Item
How Evolution Hurts Science DVD
by Dr John Sanford

US $13.00
View Item
Elephants in the Room DVD
by Dr Mark Harwood

US $13.00
View Item

Feedback archive Feedback 2010

Is there scientific proof of the existence of God?

Published: 14 August 2010(GMT+10)

DNA

The genetic code shows abundant evidence of design and the application of supreme intelligence right at the beginning. (Animation by ‘brian0918’, Wikipedia.org)

We received this correspondence from DL in Australia, first reproduced in its entirety. A response by Mark Harwood, Ph.D., of Creation Ministries International (Australia), immediately follows his letter, indented with point-by-point responses interspersed as per normal email fashion.

Thank you for your information and your offer to submit a question in writing. I appreciate the offer as I have previously attended a CMI meeting in Wingham and I was a bit disappointed (not only in the information) but that there appeared to be no time for questions. I prefer the written form as it allows both question and response to be more precise and considered.

My question is not about Dawin’s theory of evolution, which seems to be accepted by the major body of secularly educated people, Christian or not, as a reasonable explanation for the diversity of life forms on earth. It fits, in general, the growing body of evidence and is supported by the newer unravelling of genetic codes and can in some forms be witnessed in laboratories. Even the late Pope John Paul declared "ït is more than a theory" (what ever that means). I suspect the main body of resistance to the proposal springs from the Republican heart of the USA. for reasons which elude me.

My question then is concerning what reasonable alternative theories are out there to explain the evolution of species on earth ? I don’t have any vested interest in Darwin’s proposition so what else is workable and testable ?

The god proposition does not appear reasonable in that it seems yet to be both untestable and soundly founded upon lack of knowledge. One cannot rationally be expected to believe (have faith in) in untestable propositions. The fact that man has been inventing (usually in his own image) a diverse range of gods for at least 5 thousands years (and probably longer than that) gives me no confidence in any of the "god" versions.

The question of the existence of a god or gods could be a very important one. Yet it is one which seems to be ignored by all religions-perhaps for the very obvious reason. That gigantic elephant that really is in the room !

About two years ago I sent an email to Cardinal Pell in response to his newspaper column in a Sunday paper.

I asked, "Is there any scientifically testable evidence for the existence of any spiritual being, no matter how menial ? "

Pell’s reply was a simple "No".

While I gave Pell 10/10 for honesty in answering my question, I gave him 0/10 for preaching untestable propositions as something people can rely upon.

So my question to Mark is the same as I asked of Cardinal Pell: "Is there any scientifically testable evidence for the existence of any spiritual being no matter how menial ? "

If he is in agreement with Pell’s reply then he might explain why clergy of any religion should be permitted to preach untestable propositions as truth people can rely upon.

I must assume that, if Mark has a PhD from a secular university in something other than theology, he will have an understanding that science is essentially about discovering truth and of scientic method. The CMI site seems more like the medieval church, determined to counter knowledge that may challenges the role of clergy.

Thanks for your help and patience. I look forward to a reply.


Thank you for your information and your offer to submit a question in writing. I appreciate the offer as I have previously attended a CMI meeting in Wingham and I was a bit disappointed (not only in the information) but that there appeared to be no time for questions. I prefer the written form as it allows both question and response to be more precise and considered.

Sometimes, within the constraints of a church meeting, it is not possible to take questions from the floor but CMI speakers and our helpers are always available for questions after meetings at the book tables.

My question is not about Dawin’s theory of evolution, which seems to be accepted by the major body of secularly educated people, Christian or not, as a reasonable explanation for the diversity of life forms on earth.

The truth, and in particular the truth about origins, is not determined by majority vote. Many scientists, not only Christians, around the world do not subscribe to Darwin’s explanation for the diversity of life forms on the earth.

It fits, in general, the growing body of evidence and is supported by the newer unravelling of genetic codes and can in some forms be witnessed in laboratories.

The observable phenomenon of genetic entropy (continual accumulation of genetic errors through mutations) falsifies Darwinian evolution because it reveals an inexorable loss of genetic information and not a gain, the latter being essential for evolution to work.

In practice, the growing body of evidence does not fit Darwin’s theory at all. In particular, the genetic code shows abundant evidence of design and the application of supreme intelligence right at the beginning. The observable phenomenon of genetic entropy (continual accumulation of genetic errors through mutations) falsifies Darwinian evolution because it reveals an inexorable loss of genetic information and not a gain, the latter being essential for evolution to work.

What is observed in laboratories, and which is proclaimed as ‘evolution in action’, is actually loss of genetic information. Development of antibiotic resistance, for instance, is an excellent example of how loss of information leads to immunity to an antibiotic. However, evolution requires an ever increasing amount of information added to the genome for a simple organism to change into a more complex one. The problem is, such an increase of information has never been indisputably demonstrated to occur through natural processes. In particular, mutations, being accidental changes, are incapable of creating the type of information needed to specify the multitude of new complex biochemical machines that are necessary to change microbes into mankind. Information has only ever been observed to come from an intelligent source.

Even the late Pope John Paul declared "ït is more than a theory" (what ever that means).

No serious creationist would make the criticism that evolution is ‘just a theory’ since the significance of a theory in scientific parlance is well understood.

I suspect the main body of resistance to the proposal springs from the Republican heart of the USA. for reasons which elude me.

Belief in creation is derived from the historical record provided in the Bible and has no connection with political movements or nations. Creation Ministries International had its origins in Australia as a non-denominational group which it remains today.

My question then is concerning what reasonable alternative theories are out there to explain the evolution of species on earth ?

Your question, of course, pre-supposes that evolution has actually happened, but the very thing we are discussing is whether evolution or creation is the best explanation for the existence of life, so we can hardly assume the outcome! I would contend that microbe-to-man evolution has never happened, so the alternative, namely creation, does not seek to explain evolution at all.

There are really only two options available on which to base a model of origins. Either the physical universe made itself or it was made by a Being outside of the physical universe, a supernatural Being, by definition. The only remotely feasible naturalistic model of origins is evolution, which includes cosmological evolution, geological evolution and biological evolution where the latter is usually thought of as Darwinian evolution.

For clarity, what we mean by ‘evolution’ in this context is a naturalistic process by which molecules have changed into all living organisms through unguided random processes over vast aeons of time—molecules-to-man evolution. This is not the same as observing change over time in living organisms.

So, the correct question to ask is this: ‘Does the evolutionary model of origins or the Biblical creation model of origins best describe the observable evidence in the world around us?’

I don’t have any vested interest in Darwin’s proposition so what else is workable and testable ?

Science is based on observable, repeatable experiments. This means that science is conducted in the present and not the past. Forensic science seeks to reconstruct the past based on the observable evidence in the present, but there is always uncertainty because the events were not observed, which of course, is the key ingredient to a good detective story. Evolution is not testable because we cannot observe the past. But, by the same logic, neither is creation testable. What we have is two conflicting beliefs about history, so the challenge is to determine which version of history best fits our observations so we have a reasonable basis for what we choose to believe.

The work of organizations like CMI is directed towards showing the very high correlation between the Biblical account of history, as laid out in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and the observable evidence in the world around us.

The god proposition does not appear reasonable in that it seems yet to be both untestable and soundly founded upon lack of knowledge. One cannot rationally be expected to believe (have faith in) in untestable propositions.

We would have no possible way of determining the truth about our origins unless God himself had ensured that we had a reliable record of the past.

We actually have faith in untestable propositions every day of our lives. Rather than being based on lack of knowledge, our faith is usually based on very real experience. For instance, as you read this response, it is likely you will be sitting in a room which will be part of a larger building. Can you see the architect and the builder? Have you met them? How do you know they exist? You know the building had a designer and a builder because in your experience you observe that buildings do not make themselves. They all have a designer and builder. So, you believe by faith that the designer and builder exist, or have existed, because the building exists and your faith is based on knowledge. But the existence of the designer and builder is not scientifically testable! It would be irrational to assume there was no designer or builder just because you can’t observe them right now.

In exactly the same way, we look around at the amazing diversity and complexity of living things and we know there must have been a designer and builder. One of the sure evidences of design is the presence of information in the genetic code of living things. The coded information is not inherent in the physics or chemistry of the DNA molecule, just like the information in a book does not reside in the ink and the paper. Instead, the information resides in the way the base pairs of the DNA are arranged, and in the way the ink makes shapes on the paper, so that the code is intelligible and meaning is transferred.

Therefore, the inference that the universe has a Creator who is outside of what has been made, in other words, a supernatural Being, is entirely reasonable and soundly based on knowledge and experience.

The fact that man has been inventing (usually in his own image) a diverse range of gods for at least 5 thousands years (and probably longer than that) gives me no confidence in any of the "god" versions.

So, rather than trust any of the ways in which man has made god in his own image, why not read what the Creator himself has revealed about himself in his book, the Bible? It is in the Bible that we see the character of God and that he has made man in his image, once perfect but now fallen and fallible because of the rebellion of the first man and woman. We would have no possible way of determining the truth about our origins unless God himself had ensured that we had a reliable record of the past. If he can create the universe then it is reasonable to assume that he can also superintend the process of the compilation of the Bible so that we have an entirely reliable and trustworthy record of his dealings with man right from the beginning of time.

The question of the existence of a god or gods could be a very important one. Yet it is one which seems to be ignored by all religions-perhaps for the very obvious reason. That gigantic elephant that really is in the room !

Indeed the question is an important one, probably the most important question you will ever ask! And it is most definitely not ignored by Christianity. The existence of God can be established in many ways. The opening chapter of the Creation Answers Book gives an excellent summary of them.

About two years ago I sent an email to Cardinal Pell in response to his newspaper column in a Sunday paper.

I asked, "Is there any scientifically testable evidence for the existence of any spiritual being, no matter how menial ? "

Pell’s reply was a simple "No".

While I gave Pell 10/10 for honesty in answering my question, I gave him 0/10 for preaching untestable propositions as something people can rely upon.

So my question to Mark is the same as I asked of Cardinal Pell: "Is there any scientifically testable evidence for the existence of any spiritual being no matter how menial ? "

I hope by now you will see that the answer to your question is clearly “No” but the problem is you are asking the wrong question. Perhaps you could answer the following questions for me:

  1. Do you only consider something to be real if it is scientifically testable?
  2. Is love real?
  3. Are historical events real?

Clearly, there are very real things that are not accessible via scientific experiments. Most importantly, past events can only be determined by historical records as they are not available for observation and are therefore not accessible by science.

And we have just such a document in the Bible which, I believe, is God’s written word. That is a faith statement, of course, but a very reasonable faith statement because the Bible’s history is exactly consistent with what we observe in the world around us.

In particular, to determine the truth about our origins, we need an eye-witness account from someone who knows everything, who does not lie and who has written down (through the agency of human hands) all we need to know about the past. And we have just such a document in the Bible which, I believe, is God’s written word. That is a faith statement, of course, but a very reasonable faith statement because the Bible’s history is exactly consistent with what we observe in the world around us. However, the evolutionary account of history is not consistent with the evidence we see around us, so faith in evolution is not a reasonable faith.

If he is in agreement with Pell’s reply then he might explain why clergy of any religion should be permitted to preach untestable propositions as truth people can rely upon.

On the contrary, the propositions of biblical Christianity are testable as I have shown above.

I must assume that, if Mark has a PhD from a secular university in something other than theology, he will have an understanding that science is essentially about discovering truth and of scientic method.

My Ph.D. was from Sydney University in electromagnetics and I can assure you that science is not always the dispassionate search for truth based on observations and logical deductions leading to irresistible conclusions that the public believes it to be. There are some well-known frauds, like Haeckel’s embryos and the peppered moths, which have occurred in attempting to promote evolution and I recommend you acquaint yourself with them from articles on our website. It seems you have accepted the myth that science is about reality and the Bible is about beliefs. The reality is that this debate is not about science versus religion but about the conflict of two different religions—evolution and creation.

The CMI site seems more like the medieval church, determined to counter knowledge that may challenges the role of clergy.

I don’t believe you could make a statement like that if you had genuinely reviewed our website and read the articles it features. The website points to the authority and authenticity of the Bible through the many evidences discussed in the 7,000 or so articles that are readily available via the search engine. These articles cover a vast range of topics and are scholarly, peer reviewed and pitched at both lay and expert level. CMI employs more Ph.D. scientists than any other Christian organization that I know.

Thanks for you help and patience. I look forward to a reply.

I trust you will read the articles I have referenced and that you will do so with a genuine desire to discover the truth about our origins.

Regards,

(Dr) Mark Harwood

Related Articles

Further Reading


Creation.com reaches millions of people each year–many of these aren't believers in our Creator and Savior Jesus Christ. How will we keep reaching them without your support? Please consider a small gift today. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Jason C., New Zealand, 14 August 2010

Science is about discovering truth?

From a Popperian viewpoint scientific theories are either in a state of pre-falsification, or are themselves falsified. A state of pre-falsification does not mean true.

I find it funny that atheists accept as their criteria of truth a standard which can never actually be “true” in an absolute sense.

They might say, “well, it’s close enough.” But that merely begs the question. How do we know that it’s close enough?

A friend who’s into philosophy explained the “anti-realist” school of the philosophy of science. That view is that ultimately science is about constructing models that make it possible to understand our surroundings. Those models need not be regarded as “true,” merely “useful.” We can look at things like the changing atomic model to see how that works.

He himself regards evolution as one of those “useful” rather than “true” propositions. I on the other hand don’t see it as “useful” either, at least once one gets past the “change within kind” variation and selection that creationists have accepted for ages past anyway.

An acquaintance, who’s an astrophysicist gets a good laugh when evolutionists claim that evolution is as well established as the theory of gravity. The source of his humour? Physicists don’t know how gravity works. They only know its effects. He has described watching two PhD physicists hurl metaphorical faeces at each other debating whether or not gravity propagates faster than light.

Evolution isn’t even that well established, because at least we can demonstrate gravity. Are evolutionists ever going to offer something more profound than e. coli turning into e. coli to support their proposition?

Jon O., Australia, 14 August 2010

Thank you. My faith in Christ grows each time I read your articles. It is stronger now than it was before.

Chris W., Australia, 14 August 2010

Mark.

What a fantastic reply.

A lot of time, skill/knowledge has gone into that reply-and it shows!

Well done!

David H., Australia, 14 August 2010

What an excellent and well-balanced response from Mark Harwood.

I am always incredulous at the argument that God cannot be shown to exist. By definition, if something is created, then it must have a creator. My own analogy is the Model T Ford fossil.

To declare that a buried Model T Ford must have been assembled by chance over billions of years and that even its component parts have arisen by chance through chance meetings of metals etc., and further, that even the raw materials have made themselves by chance, is silly enough. But to also argue that we should not talk about a fellow called Henry Ford when it comes to discussion of the car’s origin, because that would be unscientific and because he never existed, is beyond belief.

In a similar way, to believe that the mind-boggling complexity of living organisms and the vast universe could have come about by chance, and that it is unscientific to talk about anybody creating these things, is beyond comprehension and is in the realm of fools. As God Himself has declared, ‘The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God”.’

God’s power and nature are known by His created things. God’s presence is experienced by faith which cements the believer to Him in a spiritual, intellectual, and emotional bond which cannot be broken.

I looked up the link to the Creation Answers Book in the article and found it also was well balanced and an excellent article.

Thank you for your ministry which has been very helpful to me for many years.

Ed N., United States, 15 August 2010

Thank you for your ministry. I appreciate your detailed response to DL in Australia. However, having had numerous discussions with anti-theists, I detect dishonesty when he closes his correspondence with, “Thank you for your help and patience….”

You see, DL is simply promoting his anti-theist stance as he attempts to state his argument while asking questions which he already knows the answers to. He finally attempts to insult Dr. Harwood’s intelligence and ridicule God and His creation when he states, “I must assume that, if Mark has a PhD from a secular university in something other than theology, he will have an understanding that science is essentially about discovering truth and of scientic method.”

As I have discovered in my own personal communications with the most hardened of anti-theists (and this is of utmost importance to all believers), the truth of DL’s hidden agenda is revealed when he stated, “If he is in agreement with Pell’s reply then he might explain why clergy of any religion should be permitted to preach untestable propositions as truth people can rely upon.”

You see, the argument he and his fellow anti-theists are really proposing is one which leads to the final question of whether or not clergy ought to be permitted to preach at all. In other words, DL and his “crew” aim to prove that religion should no longer be permissible. He doesn’t seek anwsers. He seeks to shut you down.

Judie S., Australia, 15 August 2010

(Not so much about the article, as being reminded by it of an existing question.)

I have wondered lately, since we ‘white’ people produce less melanin, whether it is possible that Adam & Eve were black, & melanin deficiency might be a mutation, causing a loss of information in the genes controlling melanin production.

Does anyone have any thoughts for or against, or is it one of those things we don’t know yet &/or may never know?

Editor’s responds
Spike Q., New Zealand, 16 August 2010

The writer of the letter appears to be someone like myself, who approached the super (above)-natural from the natural(physical) perspective. As Mark responded, his letter was well written, but the question seemed to miss his search target. In my case, as a previously evolutionist Information Scientist, I found disproof of Darwinist evolutionary theory in the laws of my own discipline, and this is frequently the case for other scientists, for example in Physics, where the laws of entropy & thermodynamics leave no room for upward evolution. In the case of each newly-creationist scientist that I’ve read about, and the estimate (admittedly some time ago) was that around 40% of scientists do not believe the current evolutionary paradigm, the scientist had either come to faith or had their faith greatly strengthened by further examining what real science reveals.

Graham R., Canada, 17 August 2010

A very good article.

I would like to add another point worth raising when people are asking for proof of God's existence, if I may.

If God exists in the way that Christians say He does, that is, outside everything, then there can be no physical evidence for Him. This would be like looking inside a video game for evidence of a player. However, what we do have is one moment in history where God, who is outside, enters into human life directly. If we examine the life of Christ, we find our most compelling evidence for the existence of God.

Thank you for your continuing excellent work!

Michael M., Australia, 26 August 2010

It would really like to see a reply from DL on this. Since the real question is how does DL view the response!?

Anil G., Australia, 28 August 2010

I continue to fail to understand how anyone and CMI in particular can say that there’s no proof of the existence of God. The Bible itself says it’s obvious without excuse (Romans).

I find clear arguments on this site that evolution is a fairy tale not approaching possibility far less probability; it’s proponents have to invent 75% of their evidence (dark matter) and propose ridiculous science fictions (parallel universes) just to keep a straight face.

If evolution is the only alternative to creation God is proved by default. Resorting to information theory or genetics God is proved by the existence of original information or design.

How can anyone say there is no scientific proof for God?

Russell H., Australia, 28 August 2010

I think Mark greatly understates the scientific evidence for the existence of God in his agreement with Pell. Certainly if we limit science to simply experimentation then there is no scientific way we could show that God exists as by definition we are looking at the physical world. But as Paul states in Rom. 1:19 “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly understood from what has been made, so men are without excuse.” Thus Paul goes beyond just God’s existence to his power and nature.

Certainly some things about God can only be know by revelation, and Scripture claims to be this. But science is more than just experimentation and this is clearly shown by the fact that the majority of scientists believe in evolution and think it is a scientific belief despite that fact that it is not able to be proved by experimentation.

When the natural world shows design the correct scientific conclusion surely must be that it was designed. When all nature shows that we are losing and not gaining design by mutations and natural selection surely the science is saying there must have been creation and hence a Creator. Scientists draw similar conclusions myriads of times. That is, they use logic as well as data. The data for God is the world we live in and the inescapable conclusion from this data is that God created it as it cannot have been made by the processes of nature.

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
7451
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.