Just Christianity: The Story of Salvation for Adults by Steve Copland - HTML preview

8

s it possible to prove the existence of God? From a purely scientific point of view we might say ‘no’. We may find ourselves trying to define what we mean by a ‘purely scientific view’, or even what we

mean by scientific. Science, generally speaking, is the pursuit of knowledge through the recording and observance of phenomena which can be perceived by instruments and human senses. Human beings belong to the natural order and we are quite well equipped to experiment within our own sphere of existence. However, if there are other forms of life which do not belong to the natural order, as we perceive it, will we be able to determine and verify their existence using tools from our level of existence?

It would be rather arrogant of us to suggest, as the philosopher Baruch Spinoza¹ did, that nothing can exist which cannot be scientifically validated. This tends to make science into a kind of god, or the humans who use scientific tools, divine. In actu- ality, it opens up the question of our first chapter. Is there a God? By the term ‘god’, I mean a being who is not bound by time and space and who exists outside of what we consider to be the natural world. If there is, then I suggest that science may very well provide powerful arguments for this being’s existence, but ultimately be unable to prove that existence absolutely.

It is not the role of the Christian to prove the existence of God; however, throughout the past twenty centuries Christians have systemized certain ways of explaining God’s existence for the purposes of dialogue and debate. The Bible², for example, never argues for the existence of God, it rather assumes that everyone is wise enough to recognize the evidence for God in creation. Psalm 14:1 simply states that, ‘the fool says in his heart that there is no God’. The Bible isn’t so interested in people not believing in God, but rather not knowing Him on a personal level. The Bible also assumes that the people who do not want God to exist, are those who reject the idea of a higher authority who may desire that they submit to Him.³

In this first chapter we will examine seven basic arguments that Christians have put forward for the existence of God, and also offer criticisms.

According to atheist philosophy, human beings are products of macroevolution⁴ and supposedly the most highly evolved animals on the planet. According to the Bible, human beings are made in the image of God the Creator. The Bible assumes then that we will have a consciousness of what is right and wrong, an instinctive understanding of moral laws such as murder, adultery and theft, although these attributes are said to have been perverted through rebellion against God. The animal kingdom does not live by moral law; there are no concepts of right and wrong, adultery or murder. In this system the highest ideal is the survival of the strongest so that the next generation is better than the previous. In the natural world, the weakest animals are usually destroyed by predators because they cannot run as fast or are crippled, and this means that they never breed. This is what is referred to as natural selection, and it is thought to protect the species from extinction. If there is no God, then on what grounds do we change and effectively halt the precepts that govern natural selection?

If we are to be true to the precepts of macroevolution, then should we exterminate any human who is born deformed, such as a cripple for example? If we are no more than evolved animals, then why have notions like compassion, love, fairness, right and wrong, adultery, stealing or murder? All of these concepts are religious, or come from religious philosophies; they are only found in the one species that the Bible says is made in the image of God. If a person claims to be atheist, then let them reject all religious concepts and live as if they are merely products of evolution, otherwise, perhaps, they live as hypocrites.

Obviously, it will be argued, that such a world would be totally chaotic and I agree with this, however, my argument still stands. If we argue that human beings are the most highly evolved animals then how do we explain that we are also the most violent of species, killing and murdering each other for reasons which no other animal could possibly conceive? The vast majority of animals fight and kill for survival or in mating rituals. Yet the human animal kills out of envy, lust for power, jealousy and a host of other reasons. One may also ask the question; why would evolution gradually evolve beings which are not only more violent and destructive than previous ones, but are basically both capable of, and working towards making themselves extinct? Doesn’t that contradict the idea of evolving towards more certain survival?

The true atheist has a life with no hope; a life which ends in what the German philosopher Nietzsche called ‘nihilism’. He understood that true atheism was to live like an animal, not a creature separated from other animals by being in the image of God. Nietzsche tried to live as if there was no God; in that he was not a hypocrite at least, and the result was that he spent the last eleven years of his life in a mental asylum. He lost his mind at the point where he saw a person mistreating a horse. He ran and put his arms around the horse’s head to comfort the animal, and then he burst into tears. I believe, after a careful examination of his works, that he cried because he realized that this simple act destroyed his atheism. No atheistic product of evolution could ever feel compassion for a poor horse; by having these feelings Nietzsche realized that he was acting as a person with religious ideals. The contradiction drove him insane because he could not escape the fact that he couldn’t live as a true atheist. In fact, when he was just fourteen, Nietzsche made a sworn written commitment to serve Jesus Christ all of his life. He spent the rest of his life trying to deny the God he had promised to serve, and as a result, his writings show a man who was obsessed with a God he claimed was ‘dead’.

The English word ‘because’ comes from this idea. Everything happens ‘because’ something or someone made it happen. Behind every effect is a cause. Although this argument may be quite powerful at arguing a God behind everything, it has some very weak points. For example, in this scenario God may have started everything and then just gone on holiday and left us to ourselves. God may also have ceased to exist. Given the evidence of evil in the world, God may also be an evil God, not a loving one. However, apart from these criticisms, consider the fact that everything we see around us and in space is in motion, so it stands to reason that there was something or someone to begin this process.

Consider also, that of all animals, humans are not necessary in the world, indeed the world environment would function much better without us as it is humans who are destroying the delicate balance of nature. If the world has beings which are not necessary, then why are they here? Evolution would not evolve such beings, because the theory of evolution presupposes change for the better, rather than change in order to destroy the process. The answer or ‘cause’ to this dilemma must of necessity be God and the reason be much more than mere survival. The Bible suggests a perfect creation which has gone wrong because of sin, not as Darwin presumed, a chaotic world evolving towards perfection and creating only the necessary evolutionary steps to achieve that end. Human beings do not fit the evolutionary scheme in this sense.

We may also ask about the source of moral ideas such as nobility, truth, etc and what causes humans to have such values? These are not found in the animal kingdom in any of the so-called stages of evolution. If we study the next step down in the so-called evolutionary chain, we find absolutely no moral concepts at all; not even a hint of philosophical thinking. The answer must be that these values are a reflection of a moral being we call God, who has planted them in the only ‘animal’ made in His image.

Like the last argument, this argument is throughout the Bible. The Bible states that God designed the world; that He caused it to come into being. Macroevolution claims that the world is the product of random chance. Imagine that a primitive man is walking across the desert when he finds a shiny object in the sand. It is a watch, but he has never seen a watch before. He plays with it and accidentally winds it up which starts it ticking and moving. He has two choices as to its origins. The first choice is the evolutionary explanation. The watch was created when by chance all of the parts accidentally flew together and it became a complete watch. The second choice is that someone designed the watch for a purpose.

There are many examples of incredible design in nature which atheist scientists have no explanation for. This subject will be discussed in more detail in argument five. For example, the structure of DNA, the exact tilt of the Earth which determines our seasons, and even the intricate structure of a simple piece of grass. Even atheistic scientists have an impossible task to argue that such examples are random chance. In the past forty years the science of micro-biology has discovered such complexity in the simplest of life-forms, that it is estimated that about 90% of scientists working in this field believe that an intelligent, creative agent is responsible for the creation of life.⁵

There is another part of the design argument which is worth considering. I believe that God has put his label on all of creation. Some people like to wear label clothes, which clearly state who designed those clothes. God has done the same. God told Moses that his name was ‘I Am’. This is like saying my name is ‘Infinity’. Jesus is called the ‘Alpha and Omega’or the beginning and the end. In the Bible, then, God claims to be infinity, He is where infinity comes from, and it is one of His attributes. Scientists discovered that although there are a set number of types of atoms, no two atoms are the same. Recently the same discovery has been found to be true of the parts of atoms. This means that it is impossible for any two objects to be the same in the entire universe. For example, snowflakes, when seen under a microscope, are extremely complex and beautiful symmetric shapes, but if there are no two atoms exactly alike, then logically, there has never been two snowflakes the same. Infinity is God’s label, His trademark. On a more personal level, every human being is completely original, with unique fingerprints, eye retina imagery, and DNA. This is a very powerful argument and one which evolution cannot adequately explain.

Does life have a purpose? In evolution the purpose of life is basically to survive and continue the species. At the end of his life the atheist is just another dead monkey. For the Christian, life has a purpose, God created us with a purpose in mind. All of creation has a goal, which is governed by God, and everything is moving towards that goal. This argument also has problems. Why not create a world which cannot have evil? This question we will examine in detail later, but for now we must assume that the presence of evil must somehow fit into the Creator’s ultimate goal and design or He would not have allowed it. As we continue through the story of salvation, God’s absolute goal and purpose will become crystal clear to even the most determined skeptic.

Since the 1960’s, macroevolution theory has been basically disproved as an answer to existence, although some scientists still refuse to admit this. The studies of micro-biology, quantum physics, cosmology, and bio-chemistry have found evidence of incredible design which evolution theory cannot explain. There are two types of evolution theory and we need to understand the difference. It is very simple. Macroevolution (Darwinism) claims that all things came from the same primal source, namely, primordial soup. Specific evolution or microevolu- tion states that all animals evolve or adapt within their own species, and Christians agree with this.

Macroevolution is dead! In his book “ Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” Michael Denton, a molecular biologist, points out the many contradictions to evolution theory. For example: The simplest life form known is the single cell. To create a cell you need certain proteins. These proteins are not found anywhere in the natural world, rather, they are created by other cells. Therefore, you need a cell to produce another cell. It is impossible to create the first cell as there are no proteins. Evolution cannot find an answer to where the first cell came from so it simply avoids the question. But the problem for Darwin’s theory is much more serious than a discussion on the origin of proteins.

One of Darwin’s most avid promoters in the nineteenth century, Ernst Haeckel, examining cells through what we would now consider a primitive microscope, stated that a cell was a “homogeneous globule of protoplasm”.⁶ He couldn’t have been more wrong.

In a more recent book, Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University Pennsylvania, expertly demonstrates the overwhelming problems that Darwin’s theory has in explaining the complexities of the simplest life forms. For example, the system used in the body to cause blood to clot in order to prevent a person from bleeding to death is irreducibly complex. It is called a coagulation cascade and to reduce its complexity even in the slightest detail would mean certain death to an animal or human, through clots blocking arteries, or not forming at all. Behe claims that, “no one on earth has the vaguest idea how the coagulation cascade came to be”.⁷

Darwin claimed that all life evolved through many gradual changes and mutations, but scientists have discovered many irreducibly complex systems which did not evolve gradually at all, but are the creation of a master designer. To reduce these systems in the slightest way would mean they would simply not work at all, not that they would work less effectively. The defense system of the Bombardier Beetle, the complexity of a bacterial flagellum, the movement of a cilium, the mind boggling complexity of vesicular transport, and the immune system, are all excellent examples of systems which Darwinian Theory is totally helpless to explain.

Behe points out that in America, evolution theory has become like a religion for many scientists, partly because of the heated debate amongst some Christian fundamentalists and scientists over the years. The fundamentalists have attacked scientists, who in turn have defended their position for reasons which are no longer scientific. The argument has become one of pride, rather than seeking to discover the truth. Sadly, this position has also meant that textbooks continue to be used in schools and universities which are grossly out of date, namely, because the alternative - teaching that an intelligent agent created the world - would be seen as a backward step and a defeat by liberal Darwinians.

trouble or terrified of death? During the Vietnam War there was a common expression. “There are no atheists in foxholes”. Foxholes were holes and tunnels dug into the ground where the enemy waited to ambush you. Soldiers had to go down and into

these holes to find the enemy, but these places were extremely dangerous and filled with booby traps. In this situation it was said that even the atheists prayed for safety. There is something inside a human being which makes us cry out to God when a situation has overtaken us. When we are rich, comfortable, and safe we don’t feel a need for God; we are often arrogant and independent. But when there is a flood, a fire, an accident, a tsunami, something which humbles us through having no control, then we think of God, and even if only secretly, we pray. The father of atheism, Feuerbach, used this argument to suggest that human beings create God in their own minds to comfort them in times of stress and need. Was he right, or is there an instinct within us, which makes us call out to the one who created us?

One of the oldest and most frequently used arguments that God doesn’t exist is the issue about evil and suffering. Skeptics will argue, “If there is a God, why does He allow evil”. Or “if God exists, and He doesn’t stop evil, then He is either weak or powerless, or He doesn’t care about people”. They use this as an argument to deny God’s existence. This is a complex issue which will be discussed in detail in chapter three. However, for the sake of argument, what happens if I simply change sides and stand with the atheist? Who are we going to blame if there is no God? Without a God to point a finger at, we are left with only ourselves, and in this regard we would be correct in blaming humanity for the evil and suffering which we commit against each other.

In conclusion, the word ‘atheist’ has come to be used by those who claim to not believe in a God or higher creative intelligence. This word comes from a Greek word ‘atheos’ and its original meaning in Greek books such as the New Testament writings is also to not know God. In this sense there are millions of true atheists and many of them very religious. Many Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others, claim that it is impossible to know God on a personal level. They are as wrong as Haeckel was about cells.

The Christians’ role is not to spend countless hours in pointless arguments about the existence of God, but rather to point people to ways that they can allow God to make Himself known to them. I personally believe that if a so-called atheist will sincerely challenge God to prove His existence to them, He will do exactly that. As you continue to read through this book I challenge you to ask God to prove His existence to you, if you claim He doesn’t exist. However, once proof has been established in your mind, through circumstances which God will choose that are very personal and specific to you, then you will be faced with the problem and responsibility of how to respond to God revealing Himself to you, as ignorance will no longer be an option.

Chapter Two
Creation