Origins - God or Chance?

Developing a Biblical Worldview
Class 6
Origins: God or Chance?
By James C. Wright, J.D. [email_address]
© 2010 by Fulcrum Ministries (www.FulcrumMinistries.org)

The Scientific Method
The scientific method is based on inductive reasoning (hypothesis, experimentation, observation, reproducibility and conclusion)
Follow the evidence!
It rejects deductive reasoning from “ a priori ” first principles and assumptions
© 2010 by Fulcrum Ministries (www.FulcrumMinistries.org) Sir Francis Bacon

The Fallacy of Scientific Materialism
Science can only know, and is limited to, the material realm and natural cause and effect.
Some therefore mistakenly conclude that those limits define all of reality – there is no God, supernatural realm or miracles.

Scientific Materialism
Scientific materialism is not scientific!
It rejects the inductive scientific method because it is a deductive philosophy that defines reality based on unproven a priori assumptions ( e.g. , there is no God and all reality is material).
It does the very thing it falsely accuses Christians of doing – a priori deductive reasoning!

God is Not the Author of Confusion
Special revelation (truth through Scripture) and general revelation (truth through creation) ultimately should agree because the both arise from a God who is not author of confusion, and because both reflect the consistent and orderly nature of God.
“ For I am the Lord, I change not.” Mal. 3:6

In the quest to know God and his creation, we need Scriptural as well as scientific humility.
We must discern between true science based on the inductive method and scientific materialism, which is an anti-scientific philosophy.
In humility, we need to be willing to re-evaluate not only scientific dogma, but also theological tradition on issues where Scripture is silent or ambiguous.
Yet where Scripture – in context -- is clear and unambiguous, we should take it literally and as authoritative. Have confidence that true science eventually will catch up.
Scripture and Science © 2010 by Fulcrum Ministries (www.FulcrumMinistries.org)

God or Chance?
If the Biblical account of creation in Genesis is not true, then we have no foundation for our faith or worldview.
We have no God who speaks to us authoritatively through Scripture about what is objectively true, good and real.
The pivotal issue for a Biblical worldview is Genesis and its account of origins:
The origin of the universe, life, humanity and ourselves.

Fundamental Choice . . .
Scientific Materialism:
No one plus nothing times blind chance equals everything
Biblical Worldview:
A transcendent, omnipotent God created all out of nothing and therefore is sovereign over all.
What takes more faith?
What is more scientific ( i.e. , supported by the evidence)? Scientific materialism or a God who created all?

True Science is Inductive
The best evidence now indicates:
Darwinian evolution cannot account for the origins of life, the origin of species or the origin of humanity;
Intelligent design permeates the universe; and
The universe arose from a transcendent first cause.
Unless you make a deductive, a priori assumption that there is no God, an inductive view of the evidence indicates that design permeates all of nature.
The evidence leads to an Intelligent Designer (God) who created all.

Occam’s Razor
Occam’s razor is a fundamental principle of science, which states that you should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon ( i.e. , the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic).
--------------------------------------------------------------
Which conclusion, based on all the evidence, best fits Occam’s razor?
(No One + Nothing) x Blind Chance = Everything
or
Intelligent Design = Everything
© 2010 by Fulcrum Ministries (www.FulcrumMinistries.org))

Creation and the Creator
“ The heavens declare the glory of God, the stars proclaim the work of his hand.” ( Psalm 19:1 )
“ Through faith we understand that the worlds were formed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” ( Heb. 11:3 )
“ He (Jesus) is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” ( Col. 1:17 )

God or Meaningless Chance?
Without the Biblical account of creation, we have no answer to the questions of epistemology, ethics or metaphysics.
We can have no certainty of what is objectively true, because we are finite and there is no God who created all, transcends all and therefore knows all.
We can have no certainty of what is objectively moral, because we are imperfect and there is no God who is sovereign and therefore defines morality by his very nature.
We can have no certainty of what is objectively real, because we are subjective and there is no God who created all out of nothing and therefore authoritatively defines reality.

General Revelation
The unwillingness to recognize God through creation is a condition of the heart: We decide to “suppress the truth” and close our eyes to the evidence. ( Rom. 1:18 )
“ [K]eep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” ( I Tim. 6:20-21 )
This is the error of scientific materialism. It is an unscientific attitude because it excludes the possibility of design in nature, despite overwhelming evidence, and therefore the possibility of an intelligent designer.

Darwinism
Microevolution
Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) was a major scientific advance because it showed that species had innate variability that allowed them, through natural selection, to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Evidence supports this aspect of Darwinism.
Macroevolution
However, in the nearly 150 years since Darwinism emerged, the evidence does not demonstrate that species evolve from other species.
“ The usual procedure is to forget the difficulties, never to talk about them, and to proceed as if the theory were without fault.” Paul Feyerabend, Against Method (1978)

Evolution on Its Own Terms
“ The numbers of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum filled of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
-- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)

Where’s the Evidence?
The fossil record, nearly 150 years later, not only has failed to resolve Darwin’s problem, but now refutes macroevolution.
There is no gradual change, but rather sudden appearances of new species, stability of species and massive extinctions.
Species, in fact, suddenly appear fully formed with very little subsequent change.
"New discoveries show that life as we know it began in an amazing biological frenzy that changed the planet almost overnight." Madeleine J. Nash, When Life Exploded (Time Magazine, Dec. 4, 1995)

The Cambrian Explosion
There is no evidence in the fossil record of any gradual change between basic morphologies.
The fossil record shows that 530 million years ago there was an explosion of life forms without any precursors.
Nearly every animal and plant phylum suddenly appeared without any evidence in the fossil record of any ancestors.

Evolutionists are Stumped . . .
“ Cambrian seas teemed with life preserved in an abundant fossil record. But when geologists . . . studied rocks of earlier, Precambrian times, they found nothing organic – not a trace of anything potentially ancestral to the diverse assemblage of trilobites, mollusks, brachiopods, and other creatures in Cambrian strata. This geologically abrupt transition from blankness to a rich fauna including representatives of almost every modern phylum has been called, in well-chosen metaphor, the ‘Cambrian explosion.’”
-- Stephen Jay Gould, Ph.D. (one of the most famous evolutionary paleontologists of the 20 th century), A Short Way to Big Ends , Natural History Magazine (Jan. 1986)

The Evidence Refutes Darwinism
“ Darwinism cannot explain the Cambrian explosion any more. We need a new theory.”
-- Jun-Yuan Chen, Ph.D. (one of the leading paleontologists on the Cambrian period), as quoted in Of Canadian Oddballs and Chinese Monsters by Thomas E. Woodward, Ph.D.

Evolution on its Own Terms
“ If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
-- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)

Intelligent Design
After nearly 150 years, the best evidence demonstrates that even the simplest organisms possess “irreducibly complex” organs and systems.

Irreducible Complexity
“ A single system which is composed of several well matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”
-- Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Lehigh University)

Complexity in Simple Organisms
Example:
Flagellum in protozoa
Require around 50 proteins
The absence of any one of the proteins renders the cell immobile

So Where’s the Evidence?
When Behe went to the scientific literature, there was not a single study even theorizing on how irreducibly complex organs and systems could evolve from “numerous, successive, slight modifications” or by any other means.
Nor could he find any evidence for such evolution in the fossil record.

Not Possible by Chance . . .
“ An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced . . . by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional . . . Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.” -- Behe, Darwin’s Black Box

At Minimum, Need a First Cause
All organic life is built from proteins.
Without proteins, organic life is impossible.
In the 1950s, scientists tried to duplicate the “primordial soup” from which they thought life emerged, but based on erroneous assumptions.
The best evidence today indicates the odds of even a simple protein molecule being assembled through chance alone, even in the presence of its constituent amino acids, is one in 10 40 .
To put that in perspective, the universe is only an estimated 10 18 seconds old (assuming 15 billion years).

Follow the Evidence . . .
“ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” ( Rom 1:18-20 )

God or Chance?
“ I am not ashamed to say that I believe in the first chapter of Genesis, but I should be ashamed to say that I believe in any form of evolution.”
-- E.J. Young, In the Beginning

http://crossroadjunction.com	71
http://fulcrumexpress.com	26
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com	1

Origins - God or Chance?

by Fulcrum Ministries on Nov 08, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

3 Embeds 98

Statistics

Origins - God or Chance? — Presentation Transcript