Does God exist?
The Creation Answers Book (8th ed. 2019), Chapter 1
- Is there objective evidence that God exists?
- What are the consequences of atheism?
- Where did God come from?
- Can we know God personally?
The Bible begins with the statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). God’s existence is assumed, self-evident. In Psalm 14:1 we are told, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.”
Here we see that the Bible connects corrupt thoughts about God—especially denying His very existence—with corrupt morals. And it is true that if there is no God, no Creator who sets the rules, then we are set adrift morally. When the children of Israel forgot their Creator in the times of the Judges, when they had no-one leading them in being faithful to God, “… every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25), and chaos reigned.
We see the same thing happening today. Countries where the people once honoured God, recognizing that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19), experienced unprecedented security and prosperity. Those same countries today are crumbling as people turn their backs on God. “Righteousness lifts up a nation, but sin is a shame to any people” (Prov. 14:34).
As nations turn their backs on God, living as if He does not exist, sin abounds—political corruption, lying, slander, public displays of debauchery, violent crime, abortion, theft, adultery, drug taking, drunkenness, gambling and greed of all kinds. Economic woes follow as taxes increase and governments borrow money to pay for bigger and bigger police forces, jails, and social security systems to patch up the problems.
Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking—that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no god) and secular humanism (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking abounds in universities and governments today.
Some of the greatest evil seen has been perpetrated by those who have adopted an evolutionary approach to morality—Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot. Atheistic evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith acknowledged of Hitler:
“The German Führer … is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.”1
Many millions have suffered terribly and lost their lives because of this atheistic way of thinking. Atheism kills, because without God there are no rules—anything goes! Atheists are at the forefront of efforts to legitimize abortion, euthanasia, drug taking, prostitution, pornography and promiscuity. All these things cause misery, suffering and death. Atheism is the philosophy of death.
Now atheists love to point to atrocities committed by supposed ‘Christians’—the Crusades and Northern Ireland are favourites.2 If the people committing these terrible deeds were indeed Christians, they were/are being inconsistent with their own standard of morality (e.g. “do not murder”, “love your enemies”). However, Stalin, for example, was being consistent with his, because, being an atheist (after reading Darwin), he had no objective basis for any standard of morality. Keith admitted that Hitler was also consistent with his evolutionary philosophy.
Christianity says, “God is love”, “love one another” and “love your enemies”. Such love is self-sacrificing. Consequently, Christians have been at the forefront in helping the sick, looking after the orphaned and the aged, feeding the hungry, educating the poor, and opposing exploitation through such things as child labour and slavery.
Atheism, with its evolutionary rationale, says ‘love’ is nothing more than self-interest in increasing the chances of our genes surviving in our offspring or our close relatives. In the ‘struggle for survival of the fittest’, where is the basis for compassion? Hitler’s death camps grew out of his desire for the ‘Aryan race’ to win the battle for ‘the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life’ (the subtitle to Darwin’s Origin).
However, not only is atheism destructive, it is logically flawed at its very roots because there must be a creator, as we shall see.
Biblical evidence for the existence of a divine author
The Bible, as well as proclaiming the existence of God, also bears witness that God exists, because only divine inspiration can explain the existence of this most remarkable of books. The characteristics that point to divine authorship are:4,5,6
The Bible’s amazing unity. Despite being penned by more than 40 authors from over 19 different walks of life over some 1,600 years, the Bible is a consistent revelation from the beginning to the end. Indeed the first and last books of the Bible, Genesis and Revelation, dovetail so perfectly—telling of ‘Paradise Lost’ and ‘Paradise Regained’ respectively—that they speak powerfully of their divine authorship (compare, for example, Gen. 1–3 and Rev. 21–22).
The Bible’s amazing preservation. In spite of political and religious persecution, the Bible remains. The Roman Emperor Diocletian, following an edict in AD 303, thought he had destroyed every hated Bible. He erected a column over the ashes of a burnt Bible to celebrate his victory. Twenty-five years later, the new emperor, Constantine, commissioned the production of 50 Bibles at the expense of the government! The Bible is today available in far more languages than any other book.
The Bible’s historical accuracy. Nelson Glueck, famous Jewish archaeologist, spoke of what he called “the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particularly so when it is fortified by archaeological fact”.7 William F. Albright, widely recognized as one of the great archaeologists, stated:
“The excessive scepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.”8
Sir William Ramsay, regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever, trained in mid-nineteenth century German historical skepticism and so did not believe that the New Testament documents were historically reliable. However, his archaeological investigations drove him to see that his skepticism was unwarranted. He had a profound change of attitude. Speaking of Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, Ramsay said, “Luke is a historian of the first rank … he should be placed along with the greatest of historians.”9
At many specific points archaeology confirms the Bible’s accuracy.10 There are many particulars where skeptics have questioned the Bible’s accuracy, usually on the basis of there being no independent evidence (the fallacy of arguing from silence), only to find that further archaeological discoveries have unearthed evidence for the biblical account.11
The Bible’s scientific accuracy. Some examples: that Earth is round (Isa. 40:22); Earth is suspended in space without support (Job 26:7); the stars are countless12 (Gen. 15:5); the hydrologic cycle;11 sea currents;13 living things reproduce after their kind;14 many insights into health, hygiene,15 diet, physiology (such as the importance of blood,16 e.g. Lev. 17:11); the first and second laws of thermodynamics (e.g. Isa. 51:6), and many other things.17
The Bible’s prophetic accuracy. The Bible states that the accurate foretelling of events is the province of God. God said:
“I have foretold the former things from the beginning; and they went out of My mouth; and I made them hear; I acted suddenly; and they came about. … I declared it to you from the beginning. Before it happened I revealed it to you; lest you should say, ‘My idol has done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, has commanded them.’” (Isa. 48:3, 5).
One will search in vain for one line of accurate prophecy in other religious books, but the Bible contains many specific prophecies. McDowell6 documents 61 prophecies regarding Jesus alone. Many of these, such as His place, time, and manner of birth, betrayal, manner of death, burial, etc., were beyond His control. McDowell also thoroughly documents 12 detailed, specific prophecies regarding Tyre, Sidon, Samaria, Gaza and Ashkelon, Moab and Ammon, Petra and Edom, Thebes and Memphis, Nineveh, Babylon, Chorazin-Bethsaida-Capernaum, Jerusalem and Palestine. He shows how these prophecies were not ‘post-dictions’ (that is, written after the event).
The probability of all these things coming to pass by chance is effectively zero. Only the wilfully ignorant (2 Peter 3:5) could deny this evidence that God must have inspired these prophecies.
The Bible’s civilizing influence. The Bible’s message elevated the blood-drinking ‘barbarians’ of the British Isles to decency. It is the basis of English common law, the American Bill of Rights and the great democracies such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
The Bible has inspired the noblest of literature—from Shakespeare, Milton, Pope, Scott, Coleridge, and Kipling, to name a few—and the art of such as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Rembrandt. The Bible has inspired the exquisite music of Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mendelssohn and Brahms. Indeed, the decline in acceptance of the biblical world view in the West has been paralleled by a decline in the beauty of art.18
Today the message of the Bible still transforms. Animistic tribal groups in the Philippines are today still being delivered from fear, and former cannibals in Papua New Guinea and Fiji now live in peace, all because of the Gospel.
The Bible’s absolute honesty. Someone has said, “The Bible is not a book that man could write if he would, or would write if he could.” The Bible does not honour man, but God. The people in the Bible have feet of clay; they are shown ‘warts and all’. Against the backdrop of their sinfulness and unfaithfulness, God’s holiness and faithfulness shine through.
Even the heroes of the faith (Heb. 11) have their failures recorded, including Noah (Gen. 9:20–24), Moses (Num. 20:7–12), David (2 Sam. 11), Elijah (1 Kings 19), and Peter (Matt. 26:74). On the other hand, the enemies of God’s people are often praised—for example, Artaxerxes (Neh. 2), Darius the Mede (Dan. 6), and Julius (Acts 27:1–3). These are clear indications that the Bible was not written from a human perspective.
The Bible’s life-transforming message. In San Francisco, a man once challenged Dr Harry Ironside to a debate on ‘Agnosticism19 versus Christianity’. Dr Ironside agreed, on one condition: that the agnostic first provide evidence that agnosticism was beneficial enough to defend. Dr Ironside challenged the agnostic to bring one man who had been a ‘down-and-outer’ (a drunkard, criminal, or such) and one woman who had been trapped in a degraded life (such as prostitution), and show that both of these people had been rescued from their lives of degradation through embracing the philosophy of agnosticism. Dr Ironside undertook to bring 100 men and women to the debate who had been gloriously rescued through believing the Gospel the agnostic ridiculed. The skeptic withdrew his challenge to debate Dr Ironside.
The message of the Bible mends lives broken by sin, which separates us from our holy Creator. In contrast, agnosticism and atheism, like all anti-God philosophies, destroy.
God is revealed in Jesus Christ
The Bible says, “… but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:2,3a, ESV).
Jesus fulfilled over 60 prophecies in the Old Testament, as mentioned earlier.
He claimed to speak as God. He did things that only God can do, such as raise the dead to life (John 11:17–12:17), calm storms (Matthew 8:23–27), forgive sins (Mark 2:1–7), claimed to send prophets (Matthew 23:34) and the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49), and accepted worship (Matthews 14:33). He was not just a prophet or a good man; He was far more than that and said so. The converted atheist, C.S. Lewis, said that there were three options: that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or he was Lord (God). His life and Resurrection proved that He was indeed Lord. No wonder that soon after His death, the New Testament authors recognized Him as God and Creator (John 1:1–3, Colossians 1:15–20).
No one disputed that the tomb where they put Jesus’ body was empty on the third day. However, all attempts to explain this, other than He was resurrected from the dead, fail. Various people have set out to prove that the Resurrection did not happen, using appropriate historical/legal methods, and ended up coming to faith in Christ as Lord. Lawyer Frank Morison was one, and presents the evidence in the book Who moved the stone?20
Jesus’ influence on the world has been profound, for individuals and for society. The Bible says, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation, old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Many have testified to a life-transforming encounter with the risen Christ. John Newton, former slave trader, had his life turned around (he wrote the hymn Amazing Grace). He encouraged William Wilberforce in his quest to abolish slavery.
Faith in Christ has transformed society: the concept of sanctity of human life (all made in the image of God) ended barbaric practices such as the Roman games, infant exposure, euthanasia of the infirm, old, etc.; literacy and education for the common man; charity/benevolence (Good Samaritan); civil society (“love your enemies”); representative parliamentary democracy with a balance of powers (because of the fallen-ness of man); legal protection (multiple witnesses—Deuteronomy 19:15, 2 Corinthians 13:1); beautiful art and music; elevation of women; universities, hospitals, orphanages, and much more. Modern science arose out of Christian thinking.21
Other evidence for the Creator-God of the Bible
The universal tendency of things to run down and to fall apart shows that the universe had to be ‘wound up’ at the beginning. It is not eternal. This is totally consistent with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).
The changes we see in living things are not the sorts of changes that suggest that the living things themselves came into being by any natural, evolutionary process. Evolution from molecules to man needs some way of creating new complex genetic programs, or information. Mutations and natural selection lead to loss of information.
The fossils do not show the evolutionists’ expected transitions from one basic kind of organism to another. This is powerful evidence against the belief that living things made themselves over eons of time.
Evidence that the universe is relatively ‘young’ also contradicts the belief that everything made itself over billions of years. Because the events are so improbable, lots of time is thought to help the cause of the materialists.
The traditions of hundreds of indigenous peoples from around the world—stories of a global flood, for example—corroborate the Bible’s account of history, as does linguistic and biological evidence for the closeness of all human ‘races’.
The explosion in knowledge of the intricate workings of cells and organs has shown that such things as the blood clotting system could not have arisen by a series of accidental changes. The instructions, or information, for specifying the complex organization of living things is not in the molecules themselves (as it is with a crystal), but is imposed from outside. All this demands an intelligent creator who vastly exceeds our intelligence.
The myth of atheism and science
Many today think that science is anti-God. Atheists encourage this view by claiming that their way of thinking is ‘scientific’. In claiming this, they are merely redefining science to exclude God. In fact, science began to flourish only when the biblical view of creation took root in Europe as the Reformation spread its influence. The presuppositions that enabled a scientific approach to investigating the world—that the created universe is real, consistent, understandable, and possible to investigate, for example—came from the Bible. Even non-Christian historians of science such as Loren Eiseley have acknowledged this.22 Consequently, almost every branch of science was either founded, co-founded, or dramatically advanced by scientists who believed in the Bible’s account of creation and the Flood.23,24 And there are many scientists today who believe the Bible.25
Is it science?
Science has given us many wonderful things: men on the moon, cheap food, modern medicine, electricity, computers, and so on. All these achievements involve doing experiments in the present, making inferences from these results and doing more experiments to test those ideas. Here, the inferences, or conclusions, are closely related to the experiments and there is often little room for speculation. This type of science is called process, or operational, science, and has given us many valuable advances in knowledge that have benefited mankind.
However, there is another type of science that deals with the past, which can be called historical, or origins, science. When it comes to working out what happened in the past, science is limited because we cannot do experiments directly on past events, and history cannot be repeated. In origins science, observations made in the present are used to make inferences about the past. The experiments that can be done in the present that relate to the past are often quite limited, so the inferences require a deal of guesswork. The further in the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork, and the more room there is for non-scientific factors to influence the conclusions—factors such as the religious belief (or unbelief) of the scientist. So, what may be presented as ‘science’ regarding the past may be little more than the scientist’s own personal worldview. The conflicts between ‘science’ and ‘religion’ occur in this historical science, not in operational science. Unfortunately, the respect earned by the successes of operational science confounds many into thinking that the conjectural claims arising from origins science carry the same authority.
When it comes to historical science, it is not so much the evidence in the present that is debated, but the inferences about the past. Scientists who believe the record in the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God,26 will come to different conclusions from those who ignore the Bible. Wilful denial of God’s Word (2 Peter 3:3–7) lies at the root of many disagreements over ‘historical science’.
Who created God?27
Skeptics often taunt Christians with ‘If God created the universe, then who created God?’ (and many genuine thinkers ponder similar ideas). But the Bible defines God as the uncreated (i.e. eternal) Creator of the universe, and what applies within the universe need not apply to God, so the question ‘Who created God?’ becomes illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’
So a more sophisticated questioner might ask, ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ The following reasoning stands up to scrutiny:
- Everything which has a beginning has a cause.28
- ·The universe has a beginning.
- ·Therefore the universe has a cause.
It is important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so does not need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s General Relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space at the beginning of the universe. Since God, by definition, is the Creator of the whole universe, He is the Creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so He has no beginning in time. Therefore He does not have, or need to have, a cause.
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
- 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
- 2nd Law: The amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down, or entropy29 is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy and reached what is known as ‘heat death’. I.e. all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the best solution is that the universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.30
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no one really denies; it is commonsense. All science, history, and law enforcement would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied.31 Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because it would need to exist before it came into existence; a logical absurdity.
- The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
- It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
- The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
- God, as Creator of time, is outside of time. Therefore, He had no beginning in time, has always existed, and so does not need a cause.32,33
Whichever way you look at it—the evidence from the Bible, the incredibly complex, organized information in living things, or the origin of the universe—belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator God, as revealed in the Bible, not only makes sense, but is the only viable explanation.
The Christian knows God!
To one who is a genuine Christian, there is no doubt about God’s existence. The Bible says,
“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption by which we cry, Abba, Father! The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God” (Rom. 8:14–16).
The Bible here says that Christians have a personal relationship with God. This is the testimony of those who have realized their sinfulness in the sight of Almighty God and the dire consequences of their sin, have repented of their sin, and have accepted the forgiveness of God made possible through Jesus’ death and Resurrection. All such genuine Christians have received the Holy Spirit of God and so have assurance that they are ‘children of God’. They can indeed know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13).
Appendix: Non-biblical evidence for the Creator God of the Bible
1. Natural law
There is a universal tendency for all systems of matter/energy to run down.34 Available energy is dissipated and order is lost. Without either a programmed mechanism or intelligent action, even open systems35 will tend from order to disorder, from information to non-information, and towards less availability of energy. This is the reason why heat flows from hot to cold, and why the sun’s energy will not make a dead stick grow (as opposed to a green plant, which contains specific, preprogrammed machinery to direct the energy to create a special type of order known as specified complexity).
Applied to the origin of the first life, this denies that such specified complexity can possibly arise except from outside information impressed on to matter. Applied to the whole universe, which is acknowledged as winding down to ‘heat death’ (that is, ‘cosmos to chaos’), this implies a fundamental contradiction to the ‘chaos to cosmos, all by itself’ essence of evolutionary philosophy.36,37
So, the universe had to be ‘wound up’ at the beginning and it could not have existed eternally. This requires some agent outside the universe to wind it up—just as a clock cannot wind itself!
2. Living things
Observed changes in living things head in the wrong direction to support evolution from protozoan to man (macro-evolution).
Selection from the genetic information already present in a population (for example, DDT resistance in mosquitoes) causes a net loss of genetic information in that population. A DDT-resistant mosquito is adapted to an environment where DDT is present, but the population has lost genes present in the mosquitoes that were not resistant to DDT because they died and so did not pass on their genes. So natural selection and adaptation involve loss of genetic information.
From information theory and a vast number of experiments and observations, we know that mutations (copying mistakes) are incapable of creating the new genes that are needed to explain increased functional complexity.38 Instead, they cause ‘noise’ during the transmission of genetic information, in accordance with established scientific principles of the effect of random change on information flow, and so destroy the information.39 Not surprisingly, thousands of human diseases are now linked to mutations.
This decrease in genetic information (from mutations, selection/ adaptation/speciation and extinction) is consistent with the concept of original created gene pools—with a large degree of initial variety—being depleted since.
Since observed ‘micro’ changes—such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria and insecticide resistance in insects—are informationally down-hill, or at best horizontal, they cannot accumulate to give the required (up-hill) changes for ‘macro’ evolution, regardless of the time period.40
These small changes are erroneously used as ‘proofs of evolution’ in biology courses, yet they cannot be extrapolated to explain ameba-to-man evolution. Such extrapolation is like arguing that if an unprofitable business loses only a little money each year, given enough years it will make a profit. The observed changes do, however, fit a Creation/Fall model well.
Although Darwin expected millions of transitional fossils to be found, they have not been found; only a small number of disputable ones. Evolutionist Dr Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History responded as follows to a written question asking why he failed to include illustrations of transitional forms in a book he wrote on evolution:
“ … I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
“I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”41
Even Archaeopteryx, often claimed as the transition between reptiles and birds, shows no sign of the crucial scale-to-feather or leg-to-wing transition. While it is always possible to maintain faith in evolution by belief in unobservable mechanisms,42 the evidence of such a systematic paucity of the anticipated evolutionary ‘links’ on a global scale is powerful, positive support for biblical creation, regardless of any argument about how and when fossils may have formed.
4. The age of things
The evidence for a ‘young’ Earth/universe is, by definition, evidence for biblical creation, as naturalistic evolution, if it were at all possible, would require eons. There is much evidence that the universe is relatively young,43 such as the decay of Earth’s magnetic field, including rapid paleomagnetic reversals,44 fragile organic molecules in fossils supposedly many millions of years old,45 not enough helium in the atmosphere,46 not enough salt in the sea,47 carbon-14 in coal and oil supposedly millions of years old (see Chapter 4), polystrate fossils that extend through strata supposedly representing many millions of years, inter-tonguing of non-sequential geological strata,48 small number of supernova remnants,49 magnetic fields on ‘cold’ planets, and much more (see Chapter 4).
Elapsed time extending back beyond one’s own lifetime cannot be directly measured, so all arguments for either a long or a short age are necessarily indirect and must depend on acceptance of the assumptions on which they are inevitably based.
Young-earth arguments make sense of the fact that many fossils show well-preserved soft parts. This requires rapid deposition and rapid hardening of the encasing sediment for such fossils to exist. Observations of multiple geologic strata and canyons, for example, forming rapidly under catastrophic conditions in recent times indicate that the entrenched slow-and-gradual, vast-age thinking may well be markedly in error.50,51
5. Cultural–anthropological evidence
Hundreds of worldwide traditions among indigenous peoples about a global flood, each with features in common with the biblical account, provide evidence of the reality of that account. Also widespread, but less so, are accounts of a time of language dispersal. Linguistic and biological evidence has recently revealed a hitherto unrealized genetic closeness among all the ‘races’ of people (see Chapter 18), consistent with a recent origin from a small population source. This denies the previously widely held belief that human races evolved their characteristic features during long periods of isolation. Molecular studies suggest that, relatively recently, one woman provided the mitochondrial DNA which gave rise to the sequences in all people alive today.52 Such evidence may be squeezed into an evolutionary model, but it was not a direct prediction of it. However, it is directly consistent with biblical creation.
6. Design and complexity
Incredibly complex coordinated biological systems are known in which no conceivable part-coordinated, part-functioning, simpler arrangement would be other than a liability.53 Some examples are the blood-clotting mechanism, the bacterial flagellum (used for propulsion), the photosynthetic apparatus, and the pupal transformation of caterpillars to butterflies. Examples abound in living things.
The immense complexity of the human brain, its creativity and power of abstract reasoning, with capacities vastly beyond that required for sheer survival, is perhaps the most ‘obvious’ evidence for intelligent creation.
At the molecular level, the organization that characterizes living things is inherently different from, for example, a crystal arrangement. The function of a given protein, for instance, depends upon the assembly sequence of its constituents. The coded information required to generate these sequences is not intrinsic to the chemistry of the components (as it is for the structure of a crystal) but extrinsic (imposed from outside).
During reproduction, the information required to make a living organism is impressed upon material substrates to give a preprogrammed pattern, by systems of equal (or greater) complexity (in the parent organism/s) which themselves had the same requirement for their formation. Without preprogrammed machinery, no spontaneous, physico-chemical process is known to generate such information-bearing sequences—this requires the operation of outside intelligence.
The most reasonable inference from such observations is that outside intelligence was responsible for a vast original store of biological information in the form of created populations of fully functioning organisms.54 Such intelligence vastly surpasses human intelligence—again consistent with the concept of God as revealed in the Bible.
There is so much evidence that God exists that the Bible says that people have no excuse for denying his existence. Romans Chapter 1 reads like a commentary on today’s world:
“18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools 22and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles 23Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves 24because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
“26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature 26and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error 27And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done 28They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips 29slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents 30foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless 31Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (ESV)
God calls us all to stop such foolishness (sin), acknowledge our need of forgiveness from our Creator and receive such forgiveness through what Jesus Christ has done for us in paying the penalty for our sins in dying in our place on the cross.
References and notes
- Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putman, US, p. 230, 1947. Return to text.
- The Crusades were a response to Islamic oppression. See Spencer, R., The politically incorrect guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Regnery Publishing, US, 2005. Return to text.
- Sources of data: Childhood church contact from Why don’t people go to church? National Church Life Survey (2002). Social stats from State of the Nation: a century of change, The Centre for Independent Studies, Australia, 2001; cis.org.au. Return to text.
- The basic concept for this section comes from Willmington, H.L., Willmington’s Guide to the Bible, Tyndale House Publishers, US, pp. 810–824, 1981. Return to text.
- Geisler, N.L. and Nix, W.E., A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Press, US, 1986. Return to text.
- McDowell, J., Evidence that Demands a Verdict 1, Campus Crusade for Christ, US, 1972. Return to text.
- Cited in Geisler and Nix, 1986, p. 68. Return to text.
- Cited in Geisler and Nix, 1986, p. 68. Return to text.
- Ramsay, W., Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Baker Books, US, p. 222, 1953. Return to text.
- See creation.com/archaeology. For comprehensive information on the Bible and archaeology, see Associates for Biblical Research; biblearchaeology.org. Return to text.
- McDowell, 1972. Return to text.
- People of old thought that the stars could be counted—there were about 1000 visible stars. For example, Hipparchus of Nicaea (c. 190 – c. 120 BC), an outstanding observational astronomer and inventor of trigonometry, wrote the first star catalogue comprising 850 stars. The leading astronomer of the classical world, Claudius Ptolemy (c. AD 100 – c. 170), wrote Syntaxis, later called Almagest (meaning ‘the greatest’), which included an immense star catalogue. This comprised 1,022 stars, and he claimed that he “observed as many stars as it was possible to perceive, even to the sixth magnitude.” See Gitt, W., Counting the stars, Creation 19(2):10–13, 1997; creation.com/star-count.Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., The wonders of water, Creation 20(1):44–47, 1997; creation.com/water. Return to text.
- Batten, D., Dogs breeding dogs? That’s not evolution, Creation 18(2):20–23, 1996; creation.com/dogs. Return to text.
- Wise, D.A., Modern medicine? It’s not so modern! Creation 17(1):46–49, 1994; creation.com/modern-medicine. Return to text.
- Hodge, A., Life is in the blood, Creation 33(3):12–15, 2011; creation.com/blood. Return to text.
- Morris, H.M., The Biblical Basis of Modern Science, Baker Book House, US, 1984. Return to text.
- Schaeffer, F., Escape from Reason, Inter-Varsity Press, UK, 1968. Return to text.
- Agnosticism is another form of unbelief that denies the truth of God’s Word by claiming that we cannot know if God exists. It is in practice little different from atheism. Return to text.
- See also Kumar, S. and Sarfati, J., Christianity for Skeptics, Ch. 4, Creation Book Publishers, US, 2012; creation.com/cfs. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., The Biblical roots of modern science, creation.com/roots, 29 September 2009. Return to text.
- Eiseley, L., Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Man who Discovered it, Doubleday, US, p. 62, 1969; see also Sarfati, J., The biblical roots of modern science, creation.com/roots, 29 September 2009. Return to text.
- Morris, H.M., Men of Science, Men of God, Master Books, US, 1982. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J. and Bates, G. (eds), Busting Myths: 30 Ph.D. scientists who believe the Bible and its account of origins, Creation Book Publishers, 2015; creation.com/bm, and creation.com/bios. Return to text.
- Ashton, J., In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, NewHolland Publishers, Australia, 1999; creation.com/s/10-2-117. Return to text.
- Psalm 78:5, 2 Timothy 3:14–17, 2 Peter 1:19–21. God, who inspired the Bible, has always existed, is perfect, and never lies (Titus 1:2). See also Psalm 119 to understand the importance of God’s Word. Return to text.
- This section is based upon Sarfati, J., If God created the universe, then who created God? J. Creation 12(1):20–22, 1998; creation.com/whomadeGod. See also Batten, D., Who created God? It’s an illogical question, Creation 32(4):18–20, 2010. Return to text.
- Actually, the word ‘cause’ has several different meanings in philosophy. But here the word refers to the efficient cause, the chief agent causing something to be made. Return to text.
- Entropy is a measure of disorder, or of the decrease in usable energy. Return to text.
- Oscillating (yoyo) universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov, solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a creator. But the laws of thermodynamics undercut that argument—as each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past. Also, there is far too little mass to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, and no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch’. Return to text.
- Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing, but this is not so. Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’. Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, or even why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or a cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it would not have any properties until it actually came into existence. Return to text.
- Craig, William L., Apologetics: An Introduction, Moody, US, 1984, and “The existence of God and the beginning of the universe”, at leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html. Return to text.
- Geisler, N.L., Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, US, 1976. But beware of the unfortunate (and unnecessary) friendliness towards the unscriptural big bang theory. Return to text.
- This is an aspect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; see previous section. Return to text.
- Those able to exchange energy/matter with their surroundings. Return to text.
- Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L., and Olsen, R.L., The Mystery of Life’s Origin, 1984; Expanded and Updated Edn, Discovery Institute, Seattle, 2020. These experts in thermodynamics show that thermodynamics is a huge problem for the naturalistic origin of life. Return to text.
- Wieland, C., World Winding Down: Understanding the ‘Law of Disorder’—and how it demands a Creator, 2012. Return to text.
- Spetner, L., Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judaica Press, Inc., US, 1997. Sanford, J., Genetic Entropy, 4th Edn, FMS Publications, 2014.Return to text.
- This is similar to the noise added in the copying of an audio cassette tape. The copy is never better than the master. See Information Theory Questions and Answers. Return to text.
- Lester, L.P. and Bohlin, R.G., The Natural Limits of Biological Change, Probe Books, US, 1989. Return to text.
- Letter (written 10 April, 1979) from Dr Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland, as quoted in Sunderland, L.D., Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, US, p. 89, 1984. See Bates, G., That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils; creation.com/pattquote. Return to text.
- Such as ‘punctuated equilibrium’, or other secondary assumptions. Return to text.
- Morris, J.D., The Young Earth, Master Books, US, 2007; creation.com/young-earth. See also, Batten, D., Age of the earth; creation.com/age, 2009. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, Creation 20(2):15–17, 1998, last updated Aug 2014; creation.com/magfield. Return to text.
- For example, Wieland, C., Sensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19(4):42–43, 1997; creation.com/dino-blood. For a 2013 summary of evidence for dino soft tissue, see Catchpoole, D., Double-decade dinosaur disquiet, Creation 36(1):12–14, 2013; creation.com/dino-disquiet. See also Robinson, P., DNA detected in duckbilled dino, Creation 42(4):15, 2020; creation.com/dna-duckbill. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., Blowing old-earth beliefs away, Creation 20(3):19–21, 1998; creation.com/helium. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., Salty seas, Creation 21(1):16–17, 1998; creation.com/salty. Return to text.
- That is, where there are ‘missing’ layers in between, according to the standard geologic column and the ‘millions of years’ timescale, suggesting that the missing layers do not represent the many millions of years claimed. See Snelling, A., The case of the ‘missing’ geologic time, Creation 14(3):30–35, 1992; creation.com/misstime. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., Exploding stars point to a young universe, Creation 19(3):46–48, 1997; creation.com/snr. Return to text.
- Mount St. Helens: Modern-day evidence for the world-wide Flood DVD, featuring Dr Steve Austin; creation.com/s/30-9-620. Return to text.
- See Chapter 4, What about carbon dating? Return to text.
- Wieland, C., A shrinking date for ‘Eve’, J. Creation 12(1):1–3, 1998; creation.com/eve. Return to text.
- Behe, M.J., Darwin’s Black Box, The Free Press, US, 1996; creation.com/s/10-3-081. Return to text.
- Gitt, W., Compton, B. and Fernandez, J., Without Excuse—Information: the key to life, Creation Book Publishers, US, 2011; creation.com/without-excuse. Return to text.