Why Christians Believe in God: Preparation for Faith

By John G. Frazier III, Ph.D.

Credible Reasons

In a series of four articles we propose to show that there are credible reasons for believing that God exists. To accomplish this we will look at Darwin’s theory of evolution to see if it is valid, we will discuss the relationship between science and faith, and we will present evidence from multiple scientific disciplines which point toward the reality of a transcendent God. Moreover, we will show evidence from the Moral Law, Creation, the Bible, the life of Jesus Christ, and Personal Experience that confirm the reality of God.

From Atheism to Faith

Lee Strobel was an award-winning journalist for the Chicago Tribune and he has written numerous books about the historical and scientific evidence for the Christian faith. In his book, “The Case for a Creator,” he tells about his journey from atheism to faith in Jesus Christ. .

Science appealed to Lee Strobel when he was growing up because it represented something he could be sure about, something that provided a basis for confidence. Even though his parents took him to church, his faith in God weakened more and more as a teen when his questions about faith were rebuffed or were answered inadequately by those in ministry in his church. Consequently, he could find no firm basis for faith.

While sitting in a biology class in 1966, he was exposed to information that led him to become an atheist. At about the same time, the “sexual revolution,” which challenged all our society’s morals, was going on, and this influenced his life as well. Once he concluded that there was no God, he said he “reveled in my newly achieved freedom from God’s strictures, …and from…being held accountable (by God) for my actions.” And “as a journalist, I was unshackled to compete without always having to abide by those pesky rules of ethics and morality…” ¹

Five years later when his wife Leslie became a Christian, he was appalled. How could she do this? She was a rational person. In his mind, Christianity was based on irrationality and wishful thinking or legend. But in just a few months, Leslie began to change. She became more loving, kind, and caring. At this point, his attitude shifted and he began to ask himself about what or Who was responsible for such a change. What he saw forced him to question his assumptions about his atheism.

The Investigation

As a journalist, a writer, and an intensely curious person, he launched an investigation into the Christian faith which lasted about two years. He determined from the beginning to pursue all his questions “about faith, God and the Bible, and…to go wherever the answers would” ² lead him.

First, he decided to seek answers to three specific questions: He wanted to determine if the images of evolution which led him to atheism were still valid. Then, he wanted to know if science and faith are forever at odds, or if the two can be reconciled. Finally, he wanted to learn if current scientific evidence can provide evidence for the existence of God.

Second, he made plans to interview top scientists representing various scientific disciplines. He chose “doctorate-level professors who have unquestioned expertise, who are able to communicate in accessible language, and who refuse to limit themselves only to the politically correct world of naturalism or materialism.” ³

Third, in the interviews, he would play the part of the skeptic, asking the tough questions, the same kind of questions he asked when he was an atheist.

In the course of his investigation, he re-examined the theory of evolution to see if it stood up to current scientific inquiry, and he examined the scientific evidence found in a number of scientific disciplines to discover if this evidence would affirmatively point toward the existence of God.

Two Major Conclusions

First Conclusion: As a result of his search, he came to two major conclusions. The first was that the theory of evolution was not valid. When faced with the scientific implausibility of the primary images of evolution, and with evolutionary theory’s inability to provide explanations for either the existence of the universe or the existence of life, he was forced to conclude that he could no longer believe in Darwin’s theory.

Next, Lee Strobel inquired about the relationship between science and faith. What he found is that science tells us about God and the Bible speaks about scientific issues. And, when we rightly understand each, science and the Bible agree. He learned that these are not two separate realms, as popularly thought, but are very much related. The God who created the universe and who inspired the Bible agrees with himself. The truth he presents in creation agrees with the truth he presents in Scripture.

Now Mr. Strobel was ready to conduct an affirmative evidence investigation. He looked into six scientific disciplines to discover if they would provide evidence supporting the existence of an intelligent Designer. These included the disciplines of cosmology, physics, astronomy, biochemistry, biological information, and human consciousness.

Second Conclusion: After examining the evidence for an intelligent Designer, he came to the conclusion that: Modern science points toward the existence of an all powerful transcendent God who designed and created the universe and birthed life on planet earth. He realized that the existence of such a Creator was required to account for all of the scientific evidence.

In the end, he came to believe that God exists and became a follower of Jesus Christ.

To me this is an astounding story, because it is a story about someone who is well educated, highly intelligent, confident, successful in his vocation and in his personal life, and a confirmed atheist who became a believer. When he saw something that began to change his mind, he didn’t run from it. He investigated it using the intelligence God had given him. Fortunately he was open-minded and was willing to listen to the information which eventually led him to Christ.

Do You Have Faith? In the face of such a remarkable testimony, we want to ask you, the reader about your faith. Is it strong, weak, or nonexistent? And are you open to receiving information which might change the way you look at things? We hope you are. In this article we will focus on the same kind of information that Mr. Strobel examined to give you an opportunity to analyze it for yourself. Then you can decide if the case for a Creator-God is convincing for you. First, we will look at Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution

What exactly is Darwin’s Theory of evolution? First, “evolutionists believe life began by chance from the right combination of nonliving materials.” ⁴ This is known as “chemical evolution.” The belief is that “a swirl of gases along with water touched by an electrical charge ignited a chemical reaction that generated the building blocks of life. No supernatural element was required; that is, life emerged purely by natural causes.” ⁵ This view contradicts and displaces the biblical view in Genesis chapter 1, where an intelligent God supernaturally created life.

Second, “evolutionists believe simple life (forms) have changed over millions of years into more complex states by a process of natural selection.” ⁶ Thus “life arose naturally into a one celled animal, then mutated and changed or evolved, over millions of years into the various kinds of life we see today (with) humans being the highest on the chain. This process is said to be guided by what Darwin called ‘natural selection'” ⁷ …a process by which the weaker species die out and the stronger ones survive.

Third, evolutionists believe that all species, including humans, share a common genetic ancestry. “This transition from one kind or type of life form into another is called ‘macroevolution’ (literally, large evolution).” ⁸ This view also contradicts the Genesis chapter 1 view that God created each creature “to reproduce after its own kind.” ⁹ That is, in Genesis, each type of creature is separate from all others, reproduces in kind, and is not derived from other kinds.

Fourth, evolutionists believe in ‘microevolution’ (literally, small evolution). This describes changes which can occur within each kind of species, allowing there to be many different varieties of dogs or cats or cattle. It also allows plant life, such as wheat or corn, to be genetically modified. Changes within kinds are happening today. They are possible, observable, scientifically verifiable and are in keeping with the teaching of the Bible.

Some hold a theistic evolution view in which God is involved to some extent in the process of evolution. However, Darwin left little room for God in his theory. He put forth a materialistic view of the world which held that all that exists is physical matter, that there is no spirit and no God, and that all life can be accounted for by natural processes.

Darwin Doubted

Lee Strobel tells us that there was a group of 100 respected scientists who were skeptical of Darwinian Evolution. After PBS aired a seven-part television series titled Evolution, in which the narrator claimed “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “every reputable scientist in the world,” ¹⁰ this group of 100 scientists “published a two-page advertisement in a national magazine (titled) ‘A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.'” ¹¹ In their dissent, they stated: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”¹²

Viewers of the PBS series were not told that there were credible scientists who disagreed and doubted the viability of Darwinian assumptions, and neither was Lee Strobel when he was a student in high school and college.

Darwin Examined – Part 1

When evolution is taught, certain experiments, illustrations, fossil findings and anatomical similarities are presented to convince students of the viability of the theory. We will examine six of these representations to see what they tell us.

Jonathan Wells, PhD, PhD. Dr. Wells was a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute. His undergraduate degrees were in geology and physics and his doctorate degrees in molecular and cell biology. In one of his books, he did a scientific analysis of the representations of evolution. After his analysis, Dr. Wells concluded that he could have little confidence in them. His appraisals ¹³ are represented in the following discussions.

The Miller Experiment: In this 1953 experiment, Stanley Miller attempted to reproduce that atmosphere of the primitive earth. Then electric sparks were shot into it to simulate lightening. The process produced some amino acids which are one of the building blocks of life. This result was said to support the idea that life could have emerged from mere physical matter solely as a result of natural processes.

Dr. Wells explained that the Miller experiment is now discredited. The scientific consensus is that Miller used an incorrect mixture of gasses to mimic the early earth atmosphere. Actually, no one really knows exactly what the early atmosphere was like. However, even if the best guess version of what that atmosphere was like were used in the same experiment today, the results would yield toxic substances which would destroy life, rather than produce life.

So why is the Miller Experiment still presented in textbooks on evolution? Dr Wells believes that this is because some scientists rigidly assume that naturalistic explanations are the only ones possible and are unwilling to consider any others. So their materialistic philosophy overrides their supposed scientific objectivity and impartiality. And when “intelligent design” is offered as an explanation, they say that explanation is unscientific.

Even so, we may ask: How close is science to discovering how life began? Dr Wells replies that science is not close at all. To create life, you have to create the right number of the right kind and in the right sequence of amino acids to create various protein molecules. Then you have to create the right number of the right kind and in the right sequence of protein molecules in order to get some of the right components for life. If you could do this (and no one can), then you have a bigger problem of putting these ingredients together with enzymes, DNA, and other materials to make a living cell.

“The problem of assembling the right parts in the right way at the right time…while keeping out the wrong (toxic) materials is simply insurmountable.” ¹⁴ The truth is, naturalistic science simply does not have a theory which explains the emergence of life from non-life, and it appears there is no potential for finding one. In view of this, and of the very fact of life, and that life had a beginning, the evidence points strongly to the necessity of an “Intelligent Designer” for life to have been created.

Darwin’s Tree of Life: In Charles Darwin’s 1849 book, The Origin of the Species, he drew an illustration which depicted the development of life forms on a tree with the most ancient form at the bottom of the tree and the other forms, in ascending order of complexity, located higher and higher in the tree. This illustration represented Darwin’s belief that all life forms have descended from a common ancestor which lived in the distant past. Random variation working with natural selection was said to explain how primitive cells developed over vast periods of time into every species – from cells to fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to human beings.

But is this a true picture? Dr Wells says “no,” because this scenario simply is not supported by the fossil record.

Darwin’s theory predicts gradual changes over long periods of time from a common ancestor. But the fossil record shows the opposite. Instead, major groups of complex animals emerged suddenly in geologic time with no evidence of ancestors; this is called the “Cambrian Explosion.” There wasn’t enough time (as required by evolutionary theory) between their appearances for them to have developed from one to the other until they got to the higher forms.

Further, the animals that appeared had significantly different body plans, strongly suggesting that they were independent of one another, and not derived from lower to higher forms. And, most telling, there is no fossil record of transitional forms, which would be required if Darwin’s theory were correct.

This calls into question Darwin’s assumption that all life has a common ancestor. Dr. Wells explains that “within a single species, common ancestry has been observed directly. And it’s possible that all cats – tigers, lions and so on – descended from a common (cat) ancestor.” ¹⁵ (Microevolution). But the idea that lower life forms developed into higher life forms (Macroevolution) is not supported by the fossil record.

Darwin Examined – Part 2

Haeckel’s Embryos: Ernst Haeckel produced a series of drawings, showing supposed similarities between the “embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit, and human.” ¹⁶ Dr Wells points out that there are some serious problems with these drawings. First, they were “faked,” that is, the images were distorted by Haeckel. In fact, he was accused of fraud by his colleagues. When compared, these drawings do not match up with photographs of actual embryos. Clearly, Haeckel wanted to force similarities and hide differences.

Second, Haeckel chose embryos of animals that resembled each other and omitted those which were dissimilar. Third, Haeckel claimed the drawings showed early-stage development when they were actually mid-stage development. The actual early-stage embryos show far more difference in appearance. Thus we have a situation in which “what is supposed to be primary evidence for Darwin’s theory – embryonic evidence – turns out to be false.” ¹⁷

The Archaeopteryx Missing Link: When Darwin published his theory in 1859, he acknowledged that the fossil records did not provide transitional forms showing species descending from other species. Just two years later, the archaeopteryx was discovered and was thought to be a “missing link between reptiles and modern birds.” ¹⁸ This creature had “wings, feathers, the wishbone of a bird, a lizard-like tail, and claws on its wings.” ¹⁹

However, Dr. Wells explains that this fossil is actually a member of an extinct group of birds, and not a reptile at all and therefore not a transitional form. Moreover, paleontologists have not been able to find transitional forms between the species over the last 150+ years! One would expect that these forms would have been found if Darwin’s theory were true. But they have not!

Homology in Vertebrate Limbs: Homology refers to similarities in vertebrate limbs. “For example, there are similar bone structures in a bat’s wing, a porpoise’s flipper, a horse’s leg, and a human’s hand.” ²⁰ These similarities are used to support Darwin’s idea of common ancestry.

Dr. Wells points out that similarities alone do not provide an explanation for why they are there. To discover why they are there, science has pursued two lines of inquiry, embryonic developmental pathways and similar genes. Neither has given a satisfactory answer as to how these similarities have developed. So with science drawing a blank, Dr. Wells thinks it is reasonable to believe the similarities are there because these life forms were made by the same intelligent designer who used similar patterns for different animals.

Java Man: The last representation we will discuss is that of a series of “apelike creatures” drawn so that they gradually change into the image of a man. This parade of images was drawn after a Dutch scientist, Eugene Dubois, found some bones in 1891 and 1892. He claimed that “Java Man” dated back half a million years and represented a “smaller-brained ancestor (of man). He was, according to Dubois, the missing link between apes and humans.” ²¹

But his evidence was scanty at best. All he found was a skullcap, a femur (thigh bone), and three teeth. Thus, the extrapolation from these items to Java man was pure speculation motivated by his expectations of what evolutionary theory would predict to be true. On top of that, Dubois conducted a careless excavation of the site and it turned out the femur bone didn’t belong with the skullcap. Since then, an anatomist determined the skullcap to be that of a human with normal brain capacity, showing that “Java man” was actually human!

Darwin Examined – Part 3

So what does this examination of Darwinian Evolution show us? We have 1) a failed origin of life experiment, 2) the Cambrian Explosion which disproves the gradual development of the species, 3) fake embryo drawings which bring into question common ancestry, 4) a fossil record which does not show transitional forms required by evolutionary theory, 5) similarities in bone structure between species which point to “design,” and 6) falsified fossil evidence. Faced with this body of evidence, how can anyone continue to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution?

Dr. Wells concludes that, on the one hand, modern scientific discoveries render Darwin’s ideas bankrupt for lack of evidence, and that, on the other hand, the evidence of modern science points strongly toward the need for a Designer. The following: (1) Embryonic development, (2) the Cambrian Explosion (3) Homology, and (4) the origin of life studies are all more in agreement with design than with Darwinism.

I Don’t Have Enough “Faith” to Believe That

Lee Strobel observes that to believe in evolution, he would have to believe ²² that:

Something (the entire universe) came from nothing.
Life came from non-life.
Organized information came from random occurrences.
Fine-tuning came from disorganization.
Consciousness came from unconscious material.
Reason came from non-reason.

But he could not believe any of these things. To him the theory of evolution lost credibility. It didn’t make sense or even account for the body of scientific evidence.

Destructive Implications

When people embrace a belief in evolution and atheism, they most often do not realize the philosophical implications of this view of life. If there is no God, what then? If human beings and their thoughts are no more than the results of the random activity of atoms, what then? The implications are truly devastating. If there is no God and if we are only the product of random forces, then logically:

Life has no meaning.
Life has no purpose.
There is no basis for morality.
There is no free will.
There is no life after death.
Human life has no value. The dignity of man is destroyed.
There is loss of hope.
There is no basis for altruism
There is no basis for love.
There will be no ultimate justice.
Benevolence and cruelty become equal because of the absence of an adequate moral standard, lack of moral accountability and the depreciation of the value of others. And, if randomness rules the day, all actions become arbitrary.
Without hope and love, man is cast into an existential freefall of despair.
Men and women have no obligation to anyone, no responsibility to live up to, and no one to answer to but themselves.
The individual’s personal value becomes zero and he may do unspeakably horrible things to his fellow man because it doesn’t matter.
There is no basis for having confidence in anyone’s thoughts or ideas, because such thoughts would be merely the result of random, purposeless molecular activity.

Contrast this with the Christian world view. For people who know that God is their Creator:

Life has meaning and purpose
There is a real basis for morality, love, and altruism.
There is free will.
There is life after death.
Man has dignity and value.
There is genuine hope.
There is an expectation for ultimate justice.
Moral lines are drawn and we know the difference between benevolence and cruelty.
We have the privilege of assuming responsibility for ourselves, others, and toward God.
We can value our self and others because we are made in the image of God.
We treat our fellow man with respect and kindness because they too are made in the image of God.
We may have confidence in the validity of our thoughts and ideas because God has made us rational, sentient beings.

It is interesting to note that most people feel they have a right to these hopeful views, especially when it comes to the value of one’s self, even if they are agnostic or atheist. But what gives the atheist the right to think this way? By his own standards he has no such right, but he does so anyway. Why? I think it is because they “know” in their inmost being that they have intrinsic value. This to me is God’s witness to them through their own humanity that He is real and He is their Creator.

We Have a Serious Problem: Evolutionary theory is accepted and assumed to be true by many in our society. It is propagated in schools and universities, advanced by the media, it is the go-to explanation in government and business, and on and on.

Someone once said that it is not so much what is taught in class, but it is what is caught in class that changes people’s thinking and therefore their lives. When we are told that we are the product of random forces, we may think, well, that’s just science. But we usually don’t think through the implications, which are that we have no value and life is meaningless. Then on a subconscious level we live in keeping with these implications without ever realizing they are there.

We can see it in our society today. People lack meaning, purpose, hope, and a solid sense of identity. Their morals are compromised. They don’t value themselves or others, and they may treat others with hate and violence.

If people knew this very fact, that they and the universe have been created by a Creator-God who loves them, it would make an enormous difference for good in their lives and in our society. This is one of the reasons it is so important to show people that there are credible reasons for belief in God. Once they understand this, it will improve their lives immeasurably, and besides, it’s true!

Science and Faith

Science and Faith – Part 1

Lee Strobel asks several interesting questions. “Can a scientific person legitimately entertain the idea of the supernatural? How much can empirical (scientific) data tell us about the Divine? and Can science and faith ever really be partners in pursuit of the ultimate answers of life?” ²³

The essence of what he is asking is this:

Is science able to tell us anything about God?
Is the Bible able to speak to the tenets of science?
Does science tell us about God?
Does the Bible tell us about science?
Can the two agree when it comes to matters of faith?

What we will find is that science is not only able but actually does tell us about God and the Bible is both able to and does speak about scientific issues. Two popular notions are that these realms are separate and do not speak to each other, and that science is king and trumps the views of Scripture. We will learn that neither of these assumptions are true.

Francis Schaeffer, points out that many of the early scientists believed in God. They considered science to be a means of discovering the laws of the heavens and earth which God had made. They never doubted that God was behind it all. They were confident that he was the Creator and Sustainer of all things and believed their work brought honor to Him by revealing the wonders of his creation. ²⁴

Schaeffer dates the rise of modern science to Copernicus (1475-1543). He reasons that Christian beliefs made modern science possible. The early scientists believed in a reasonable God who created a reasonable universe. This belief made it possible for them to believe they could find out something about the nature of the universe on the basis of reason. It gave them a certainty that objective reality was truly there for them to examine. It made them feel that the world was worth finding out about, for they were investigating God’s creation. ²⁵

They believed in God as Creator and moral “Lawgiver who also implanted laws in his creation which they could discover.” ²⁶ Moreover, they firmly believed that whatever science discovered would not be in conflict with what the Bible said. ²⁷ Some of these early scientists were Sir Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle, and Michael Faraday. These were serious Christians who believed in a personal Creator-God. ²⁸

The contemporary notion that creationism is not scientific was not known to them. The fact is that the men who invented modern science were creationists. ²⁹ However, this view was challenged about 300 to 350 years later, in the mid 1800s, with the introduction of Darwinian evolution. Since Darwin left little room in his theory for God, people were faced with a false choice: believe in science or believe in the Bible. ³⁰ As we shall see, it is possible to believe in both.

Science and Faith – Part 2

Lee Strobel tells of a 1985 conference in Dallas, Texas on science and religion. In attendance were “Allan Rex Sandage, the greatest observational cosmologist in the world, Harvard astrophysicist Owen Gingerich, and Dean Kenyan, a biophysicist from San Francisco State University.” ³¹

Sandage, who had been an atheist, “decided to become a Christian at age fifty” because he had concluded that the Big Bang “was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics…” He explained that “science had (has) taken us to the First Event, but it can’t take us further to the First Cause. The sudden emergence of space, time, and energy pointed (points) to the need for some kind of transcendence.” And he added, “It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence.” ³²

Owen Gingerich agreed, “concluding that the Big Bang seemed to fit best into a theistic worldview.” ³³

Dean Kenyan, had co-authored a book which asserted “that the emergence of life might have been ‘biochemically induced.'” ³⁴ However, when he spoke at the conference, he “repudiated the conclusions of his own book,” saying that “due to the molecular complexity of the cell and the information-bearing properties of DNA…that he now believed that the best evidence pointed toward a designer of life.” ³⁵

Lee Strobel sums up these statements by saying, “Instead of science and religion being at odds,…specialists at the highest levels of achievement…said they were theists, not in spite of the scientific evidence, but because of it.” ³⁶

Science and Faith – Part 3

Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D. has degrees in “physics, geology, the history and philosophy of science, the history of molecular biology, the history of physics, and evolutionary theory,” and he is “one of the most knowledgeable and compelling voices in the…Intelligent Design movement.” ³⁷

Dr. Meyer believes that we can gain knowledge from more than one source. “To say that science is the only begetter of truth is self-contradicting, because that statement in itself cannot be tested by the scientific method. It’s a self-defeating philosophical assumption.” ³⁸ For example, we gain knowledge through introspection and through history, although neither of these can be subjected to the classical scientific method. Dr. Meyer continued: However, “science does teach us…about the natural world” and some of the “true things” it reveals “point toward God.” ³⁹

He does not agree that science and faith are at odds nor does he agree that they are in “two separate and distinct realms that don’t and can’t intersect with each other.” ⁴⁰ Rather, he subscribes to “a third approach, which is that scientific evidence actually supports theistic belief.” ⁴¹ He informs us that over the last fifty years evidence has been discovered that “provides a robust case for theism, and that “only theism can provide an intellectually satisfying explanation for all of this evidence.” ⁴²

Science and Faith – Part 4

Different Focus Areas and Overlapping Categories

Further, Dr. Meyer explains that science and faith focus on different things in some areas, while in other areas they overlap. For example, science may ask, “how many elements are in the periodic table” or may ask for “the mathematical equation that describes” gravity. These items do not impact the larger questions of life. “However, there are other scientific questions that bear directly on the great worldview issues. For instance, the question of origins. If fully naturalistic models are correct, then theism (belief in God) becomes unnecessary.” ⁴³

Some say that “science is the realm of facts and religion is (only in) the realm of morality and faith.” But this creates a conflict according to Dr. Meyer, because Biblical Christianity “makes very specific claims about facts. It makes claims about the universe having a beginning, about God” as Creator, about human nature, and “about historical events” which are said “to have happened in time and space.” ⁴⁴

The Bible claims that Jesus Christ was a real person who lived in the first century and in a specific place, Palestine. It says that he rose from the dead. It recounts many historical events both in the Old and New Testaments. It describes specific people, tribes and nations in real time. Thus, when Christianity makes factual claims, it will “intersect with some of the factual claims of history and science.” ⁴⁵ And when it does, there will be either agreement or disagreement.

This is true partly because science is always learning and changing its picture of what it thinks is the correct view of reality, so what it thinks today may not be what it thinks tomorrow. It’s also true because when science is based on naturalistic assumptions which exclude God as a causal factor, there will be disagreement with the Biblical view.

Science and Faith – Part 5

What is Your Bias?

When in college, I made the assumption that what God said in the Bible was true and that the claims of science were false if they disagreed with the Bible. I didn’t always know the answers to the questions raised at the time, but held to my faith and kept studying until I found them. Most people today assume that science is right and that if the Bible disagrees, it’s wrong. My bias was to believe the Bible first, and it has proved to be the right one, to my satisfaction, because of the evidence, both scientific and historical.

Also, we must remember that we examine the Bible in a different way than we study science to learn if the Bible is reporting accurately. We study the Bible as a historical document using the tools of historical analysis. The scientific method cannot be used because it is impossible to go back in time and repeat the events being studied. But historical analysis, when applied to the Bible, affirms that the New Testament record of Jesus Christ’s life, teachings, miracles, and resurrection is accurate and trustworthy. [See the articles, “Why Christians Believe the Bible” and “Why Christians Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ” on this web site.]

An Argument for the Primacy of Scripture: If the Bible is from Almighty God, the maker of heaven and earth, who has all knowledge, and who proclaims that he speaks only truth, then by definition the Bible must be true even when it speaks about scientific matters. As Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “Science, done right, agrees with God’s Word.” However I do not expect the reader to necessarily start with the Bible. It is hoped that he will examine the scientific evidence for the existence of God and find it sufficient for faith in a transcendent God, who he will also find to be the God of the Bible.

Some Christians hold two conflicting views simultaneously: first that (macro)evolution is true because science says it is, and second that Creation is true because the Bible says it is. Such a person fails to recognize that the naturalistic view that random, unguided forces brought everything into being and the view that God created all things are in conflict with each other and that one or the other must be wrong. We hope this article will allow them, through an examination of the evidence, to understand that Darwinism has been discredited and that there are scientific discoveries which support the claims of the Bible.

Having discussed how an atheist became a person of faith, how Darwinian evolution has been discredited, and how faith and science can be in harmony with each other, we now turn to an examination of contemporary scientific evidence for God in the second article, “Why Christians Believe in God: Scientific Evidence.”

Why Christians Believe in God: Scientific Evidence

Cosmology

In the first article “Why Christians Believe in God: Preparation for Faith,” we learned that it is possible for an atheist to become a believer because of scientific evidence, that the theory of evolution has been discredited, and that science and faith are in harmony with each other when properly understood. Now we turn our attention to evidence from science for the existence of God. The first of six scientific disciplines we examine is Cosmology, the branch of science that investigates the origin and nature of the universe.

The Universe Had a Beginning: The Big Bang Theory and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity provide scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe. Based on Einstein’s theory, scientists determined that the universe was expanding. They reasoned that if you go back in time far enough, everything in the universe had to start at a single point. The first moment of expansion of the entire universe from that point was called “The Big Bang.” This meant that prior to that event there was nothing, absolutely nothing. Afterwards, time, space, matter, and energy came into being along with the laws of physics. The General Theory of Relativity suggests that there must be a Transcendent Cause outside of time, space, matter, and energy for this to happen. ⁴⁶

Support for the idea that the universe is expanding comes from several scientific discoveries. First, “Edwin Hubble discovered that the light coming to us from distant galaxies appears to be redder than it should be…due to the fact that the galaxies are moving away from us.” Second, “in the 1940s George Gamow predicted that if the Big Bang really happened, then the background temperature of the universe should be just a few degrees above absolute zero.” In 1965, this was discovered to be true. Third, for “light (in weight) elements like deuterium and helium” to exist, they would have had to be subject to temperatures of “billions of degrees,” a condition that is found nowhere in the universe, except in the necessary temperatures of the Big Bang itself. By establishing that the universe is expanding, we also establish that it had a beginning. ⁴⁷

Further, it is observed that “the Big Bang was not a chaotic, disorderly event. Instead, it appears to have been fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a complexity and precision that literally defies human comprehension.” This becomes “strong evidence that the Big Bang was not an accident, but that it was designed.” ⁴⁸

Whatever Begins to Exist Has a Cause: Dr. William Lane Craig stated: “It seems metaphysically necessary that anything which begins to exist has to have a cause that brings it into being.” “In atheism, (they say) the universe just pops into being out of nothing with absolutely no explanation at all.” But when you grasp the “concept of absolute nothingness,” you see that this is logically impossible. We know this from personal experience – we see cause and effect relationships all the time. Also, science, must hold this to be true in order to do scientific inquiry and to come to logical conclusions. It “is a principle that is constantly verified by (the empirical evidence of ) science.” The idea that a cause is required to produce an effect becomes the best explanation for the coming into existence of anything which at some point did not exist and then came to exist. ⁴⁹

The Universe Had a Cause: So, there we have it. If whatever begins to exist has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, then clearly the universe had a cause. Dr. Craig comments: “This is an inescapable conclusion – and it’s a stunning confirmation of the…Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation out of nothing.” Then, Dr. Craig quoted astronomer Robert Jastrow who said: “The essential element in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” ⁵⁰

The logic of this argument for God is as follows:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

This argument coupled with scientific evidence provides a very convincing case for the existence of God.

How Some Scientists React: “Many scientists are troubled by the fact that the beginning of the universe necessitates a Creator. Others are perturbed because the laws of physics can’t account for the creation event.” Consequently scientists have made extensive efforts to circumvent the implications of the Big Bang. In every case however, theories proposed to avoid the conclusion that there must be a God, are found to lack evidence, or beg the question of how everything actually began, or be based on faulty premises. This includes the theories of Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking. ⁵¹

Who Made God? Some people may ask how the Creator could be uncaused if everything requires a cause? But the argument does not say everything must have a cause. It only says that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Therefore, the argument does not exclude the possibility that a God exists who is timeless and transcendent above and beyond all that the universe is. ⁵²

The Nature of The Cause: Having established that the universe has a cause, what can we say about the nature of the Cause? Dr. Craig provides an analysis: “A cause of space and time (as well as of matter and energy) must be an uncaused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power, and that is the core concept of God.” ⁵³

A Personal Creator: Why do we say the Cause of the universe is personal? Because, he had to exercise volition. Such an Agent who has the ability to exercise will would have to be cognizant of alternatives and the means to exploit them. Such ability is possible only by a personality. Since the laws of physics didn’t exist at the moment the universe came into being, the only reasonable explanation is that an Agent transcendent to such laws had to will it into existence. ⁵⁴

“A second reason (the first Cause is seen as personal) is that because the Cause of the universe transcends time and space, it cannot be a physical reality. Instead, it must be non-physical or immaterial.” Such a reality who is immaterial and exercises volition and cognition would have to be a Mind. Since “a Mind can be a cause,…it makes sense that the universe is the product of an unembodied Mind….” ⁵⁵

A third reason the Cause of the universe is personal is given by British physicist Edmund Whittaker. He stated: “There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before (the Big Bang) and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity? It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo – Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.” This is simply the best explanation. ⁵⁶

The Creator’s Role: Christians believe that this Creator, who birthed the universe out of nothing, has also revealed Himself in the Bible and in Jesus Christ. Also we believe that he has maintained the universe since its inception, and that he has been actively working out his purpose in the physical world, in the history of men, and in individual lives since the time of creation.

Sources of evidence other than science help us understand this. We can look at the Divine marks of inspiration of the Bible such as fulfilled prophecies, its preservation over thousands of years, the consistency of its message, miracles, the resurrection of Jesus and answered prayer to demonstrate God’s revelation and continuing involvement.

In the end, the idea of God as Creator is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. Thus, “the Christian can stand confidently within Biblical truth, knowing it’s in line with mainstream astrophysics and cosmology. It’s the atheist who feels very uncomfortably and marginalized today.” We can be assured, “The…evidence of contemporary cosmology was (is) pointing persuasively toward the conclusion that a personal Creator of the universe does exist.” ⁵⁷

Physics

The Anthropic Principle: This Principle refers to the many mathematical constants in the universe which, because they are fine-tuned, make it possible for life, and especially human life, to exist on earth. Without their precise calibration no life would be possible. These constants had their origin in the Big Bang event which, as we have noted, was orderly, organized, and “fine-tuned (to create conditions) for the existence of intelligent life.” ⁵⁸ The precise calibration of these constants then provides a convincing Teleological Argument, that is, an argument for design, the design of the universe by a Master Designer.

To explore the Anthropic Principle, we draw from an interview with Robin Collins who has doctorate degrees in physics, mathematics, and philosophy. “His training in physics (enabled) him to understand the often complex mathematical equations in the field…(whereas) his experience in philosophy aided him in formulating rigorous arguments from the evidence.” ⁵⁹ In the interview, Dr. Collins discussed six of these precisely calibrated physical constants, as follows:

Gravity: The strength of gravity is set precisely at the right level. Any fraction stronger or weaker would destroy the universe as we know it and all life.

The Cosmological Constant: This term refers to “the energy density of empty space.” a measure which can hold positive or negative values. “If large and positive, (it) would act as a repulsive force…that would prevent matter from clumping together in the early universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets (and living things). If large and negative, (it) would act as an attractive force…that would…reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to collapse.” ⁶⁰

The Mass of Neutrons and Protons: If we were to “increase the mass of the neutron by about one part in seven hundred, nuclear fusion would stop. There would be no energy source for life.” ⁶¹

Electromagnetic Force: If this force “were slightly stronger or weaker, life in the universe would be impossible.” ⁶²

Nuclear Force: If this force were reduced, “since like charges repel, the strong nuclear force would be too weak to prevent the repulsive force between the positively charged protons in atomic nuclei from separating all atoms except hydrogen.” And “you can’t have intelligent life forms built from hydrogen (alone).” ⁶³

Hydrogen to Helium Energy Conversion Ratio: “For the universe to exist as it does requires that hydrogen be converted to helium in a precise…manner, specifically in a way that converts seven one-thousandths of its mass to energy. Lower that value very slightly – from .007 percent to .006 percent – and no transformation could take place: the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else. Raise the value very slightly – to .008 percent – and bonding would be so wildly prolific that the hydrogen would have long since been exhausted. In either case,…the universe as we know it would not be here.” ⁶⁴

Geisler and Turek, in their book, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” provide more examples of these constants.

Oxygen Level in Earth’s Atmosphere: “On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an anthopic constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 25 percent, fires would erupt spontaneously; if it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate.” ⁶⁵

Atmospheric Transparency: “If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth’s surface. If it were more transparent, we would be bombarded with far too much radiation.” ⁶⁶

Moon-Earth Gravitational Interaction: “If the (pull of the) interaction were greater…, effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible.” ⁶⁷

Carbon Dioxide Level: “If the CO₂ level were higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop (we’d all burn up). If the level were lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis (we’d all suffocate).” ⁶⁸

The Centrifugal Force of the Planetary Movements: This force must be in perfect balance with gravitational forces to hold the planets in orbit around the sun. ⁶⁹

The Expansion Rate of the Universe: “If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have been formed.” ⁷⁰

The Velocity of Light: Since “the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light…, even a slight variation in this speed would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth.” ⁷¹

Water Vapor Levels in the Atmosphere: If these levels were greater…, “temperatures (would) rise too high for human life; if they were less…, they would make the earth too cold to support human life.”⁷²

Jupiter’s Orbit: “If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter’s gravitational field…(attracts) asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth.” ⁷³

The Thickness of the Earth’s Crust: If the earth’s crust were thicker, “too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.” ⁷⁴

The Speed of the Rotation of the Earth: If the rotation period was greater “than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day.” If it were shorter than 24 hours, “atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.” ⁷⁵

The Tilt of the Axis of the earth: If “the 23 degree axis tilt of the earth…were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth.” ⁷⁶

Some Observations: Geisler and Turek observe that “The extent of the earth’s fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God. It’s not that there are just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. No, there are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an intelligent Designer.” ⁷⁷

Brilliant astrophysicist Hugh Ross has identified 122 such constants, and he has “calculated (that) the probability that (they)…exist for any planet in the universe by chance (without Divine design)…is one chance in a 1 with 138 zeros after it (10¹³⁸)… In effect, there is zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent Designer behind it all.” ⁷⁸

The Beauty of Physics: In the interview, Dr. Collins then described “another line of reasoning which points toward a Designer, the beauty of Physics.” He explained, “Think about the extraordinary beauty, elegance, harmony, and ingenuity that we find in the laws of nature.” And, incredibly, these qualities are used by physicists to guide them in formulation new laws. What they find is that “the simplest law that adequately accounts for the data” has a kind of elegance about it which lays a foundation for “the enormous complexity needed for life.” ⁷⁹

He continued, “In physics, we see a uncanny degree of harmony, symmetry, and proportionality. And we see something I call ‘discoverability.’ By that I mean that the laws of nature seem to have been carefully arranged so that they can be discovered by beings with our level of intelligence. That not only fits the idea of design, but it also suggests a providential purpose for humankind – that is, to learn about our habitat and to develop science and technology.” ⁸⁰

Further, he said, “Under an atheistic viewpoint, there’s no reason to expect that the fundamental laws (of nature) would be beautiful or elegant because they could have been otherwise…. However. the fine-tuning for simplicity, beauty, and elegance does make sense under the ‘God hypothesis’…he is the greatest possible being, and therefore a being with perfect aesthetic sensibility.” ⁸¹

Alternative Theories: Dr. Collins also described alternate theories for explaining the fine-tuning of the universe, including the multiple universe theory, the inflationary universe theory, and the superstring theory. He concluded that these theories are highly speculative, or lack scientific proof and would require the right conditions to exist and function – which takes us back to the question of who designed and created these conditions and functions to begin with, pointing to a Designer and Creator. Then Dr. Collins pointed out that for many physicists, these theories serve as “a metaphysical escape hatch to avoid the fine-tuning evidence for a Designer.” ⁸²

Conclusions: Dr. Collins concluded by stating that the “fine-tuning of the laws of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, (and) their intelligibility – all…combine to make the ‘God hypothesis’ the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories fall short.” ⁸³

Geisler and Turek summarize their presentation by stating the Teleological Argument, the argument from design, with this syllogism:

“Every design had a designer.
“As verified by the Anthropic Principle, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe is designed.
“Therefore, the universe had a Designer.” ⁸⁴

Astronomy

In this section, we present evidence from astronomy showing the earth and the universe have multiple features which permit life to exist on earth, which are unlikely to have occurred by chance alone, and which allow us to reasonably conclude they have been put there by a Grand Designer.

As in the previous section on Physics, we are utilizing the Anthropic Principle, a principle which acknowledges mathematical constants in the universe which, because they are so fine-tuned, make it possible for the existence of life, especially human life on earth. We have seen how these precisely calibrated constants operate in physics; we shall now see how they also operate with regard to our own planet, our solar system, and the structure of the universe.

A New Look at Old Assumptions: For some time, science assumed that planet earth was an unremarkable planet in an unremarkable solar system and that many other planets exist in the universe with life on them. However, as Lee Strobel looked into a number of scientific disciplines, he began to question this view. He states, “New findings are suggesting that we are special. More and more scientists are studying the mind-boggling convergence of scores of extraordinary “coincidences” that make intelligent life possible on earth and concluding that they can’t possibly be an accident. They’re seeing signs of design, a kind of unlikely fine-tuning for life similar to the fine-tuning of physics…” ⁸⁵

Some scientists are saying as much without actually acceding to the idea of the existence of a Designer. Nevertheless, they are struck with the incredible “coincidences” which allow earth to be hospitable to human life. Michael Denton in his book “Nature’s Destiny” informs us that “Earth’s location, its size, its composition, its structure, its atmosphere, its temperature, its internal dynamics, and its many intricate cycles that are essential to life – the carbon cycle, the oxygen cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorous cycle, the sulfur cycle, the calcium cycle, the sodium cycle and so on – testify to the degree to which our planet is exquisitely and precariously balanced.” ⁸⁶

Frank Press and Raymond Siever in their textbook “Earth,” write about “the uniqueness of planet Earth” and “note how it’s atmosphere filters out harmful ultraviolet radiation while working with the oceans to moderate climate through the storing and redistributing of solar energy, and how Earth is just large enough so that its gravity retains the atmosphere and yet just small enough not to keep too many harmful gases. Then they describe the Earth’s interior as a gigantic but delicately balanced heat engine fueled by radioactivity…” ⁸⁷

An Interview: To explore this subject, Lee Strobel interviewed Jay Wesley Richards and Guillermo Gonzalez, who together wrote “The Privileged Planet.” Dr. Richards holds advanced degrees in philosophy and theology and Dr. Gonzalez has degrees in astronomy and physics.

The Earth is Unique: Drs. Richards and Gonzalez believe the Earth is special, unique, and purposeful. They suggest that because life requires so many conditions, it’s unlikely to happen anywhere and exceptional for it to happen on earth. They explain that human life requires carbon and water as well as 26 additional elements, and “the problem is that not just any planetary body will be the source of all these chemical ingredients in the necessary forms and amounts…(And), “you need not only the right chemicals for life but also a planetary environment that’s tuned to life…. From the magnetic field to plate tectonics to the carbon dioxide cycle – ongoing life depends on a variety of very complicated interactions with the planet.” ⁸⁸

The Galactic Habitable Zone: Lee Strobel accepted the fact “that only certain kinds of planetary environments can play host to life.” ⁸⁹ But he was wondering about the likelihood of finding other solar systems which might give rise to life. So he asked, “As we look out at the billions of stars that constitute our Milky Way galaxy, can’t we logically assume that planets teeming with life are strewn all over the place?” ⁹⁰ Dr. Gonzalez said, “No…that’s not a logical assumption based on the evidence.” ⁹¹ He explained that he helped develop “a concept called the Galactic Habitable Zone – that is, a zone in the galaxy where habitable planets might be possible.” ⁹² Lee Strobel then asked him to talk about where the safe zones and the dangerous zones for life are located in our galaxy and in the universe. But first, we need to understand the types of galaxies in the universe.

Types of Galaxies: “There are three basic types of galaxies in our universe. First, there are the spiral galaxies like our own Milky Way. These are dominated by a central spherical bulge and a disc with “spiral arms” extending outward from the nucleus in a spiral pattern, resembling a celestial pinwheel. Second there are elliptical galaxies which are sort of egg-shaped. And there are irregular galaxies, which appear disorganized and distorted.” ⁹³

Spiral Galaxies: Dr. Gonzalez replied that our type of galaxy, a spiral galaxy, is the best type for life because it provides safe zones. He explained, “galaxies have varying degrees of star formation, where interstellar gasses coalesce to form stars, star clusters, and massive stars that blow up as supernovae. Places with active star formation are very dangerous, because that’s where you have supernovae exploding at a fairly high rate. In our galaxy, those dangerous places are primarily in the spiral arms, where there are also hazardous giant molecular clouds.” He added, “Fortunately…we happen to be situated safely between the Sagittarius and Perseus spiral arms.” ⁹⁴

He continued, “We’re very far from the nucleus of the galaxy, which is also a dangerous place… There’s a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy…and whenever anything gets near or falls into one, it gets torn up…. Lots of high energy is released – gamma rays, X-rays, particle radiation…(and) that’s very dangerous for life forms. The center of the galaxy is also dangerous because there are more supernovae exploding in that region.”

Location in the Galaxy: Additionally, “The composition of a spiral galaxy changes as you go out from the center. The abundance of heavy elements is greater toward the center, because that’s where star formation has been more vigorous over the history of the galaxy. So it has been able to cook the hydrogen and helium into heavy elements more quickly, whereas in the outer disc of the galaxy, star formation has been going on more slowly over the years and so the abundance of heavy elements isn’t as high, Consequently, the outer regions of the (galactic) disc are less likely to have Earth-type planets.” ⁹⁵ This is important because without a sufficient quantity of heavy elements, a planet will not be able to support life.

Danger Zones: So, the inner region of our galaxy is dangerous because of a massive black hole and high radiation levels, and the outer region of our galaxy is inhospitable to life because it’s planets lack a sufficient quantity of heavy elements for life.

A Safe Zone for Earth: Beyond this, Dr. Gonzalez tells us that “the thin disc of our galaxy helps our sun stay in its desirable circular orbit.” ⁹⁶ He explained that if earth had an eccentric orbit, it might cross spiral arms and migrate to the dangerous inner regions of the galaxy, but because its obit is circular, it remains in a safe zone. He summed up, “All of this works together to create a narrow safe zone where life-sustaining planets are possible.” ⁹⁷ Then the question arose: What about the other types of galaxies, could they support life?

Elliptical Galaxies: Dr. Gonzalez responded, “Most elliptical galaxies are less massive and luminous than our galaxy. Our galaxy is in the top one or two percent of the most massive and luminous. The bigger the galaxy, the more heavy elements it can have, because its stronger gravity can attract more hydrogen and helium and cycle them to build heavy elements. In low mass galaxies, which make up the vast majority, you can have whole galaxies without a single Earth-like planet. They just don’t have enough of the heavy elements to construct Earths. Just like a globular cluster – you can have a whole globular cluster with hundreds of thousands of stars, and yet there won’t be a single Earth. If you look at the deepest pictures ever taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, they show thousands of galaxies when the universe was really young.” But, he added, there are no Earths in them “because the heaver elements haven’t built up enough.” ⁹⁸

Irregular Galaxies: The irregular galaxies, “like the ellipticals, they also don’t provide a safe harbor. In fact they’re worse. They’re distorted and ripped apart, with supernovae going off (exploding) throughout their volume. There are no safe places…like we have between our spiral arms.” ⁹⁹

Best Location for Earth: Lee Strobel asked Dr Gonzalez what his opinion was about our location in the universe. He replied, “I think we are in the best possible place. That’s because our location provides enough building blocks to yield an earth, while providing a low level of threats to life.” He added, “I’ve studied other regions – spiral arms, galactic centers, globular clusters, edges of discs – and no matter where it is, it’s worse for life. I can’t think of any better place than where we are.” ¹⁰⁰

Our Solar System: The planets in our solar system, starting nearest the sun and extending out are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The four closest to the sun are called the “terrestrial planets” because their surfaces are rocky. The four outer planets have enormous size and are mostly made of gases rather than of rocky surfaces. These planets help make life possible on Earth is several ways.

“Jupiter – which is huge…acts as a shield to protect us from too many comet impacts.” ¹⁰¹ Its gravitational force deflects comets and keeps many of them from colliding with earth with possible deadly results. Saturn and Uranus also perform the same function. “The other planets in our inner solar system protect us from getting bombarded by asteroids from the asteroid belt,” ¹⁰² located mostly between Mars and Jupiter. Both Mars and Venus protect us in this way.

Earth’s Position in our Solar System: Astrobiologists have developed a concept called the “Circumstellar Habitable Zone. That’s the region around a star where you can have liquid water on the surface of a terrestrial planet. This is determined by the amount of light you get from the host star. You can’t be too close (to the sun), otherwise too much water evaporates into the atmosphere…and you boil off oceans…. But if you get too far out, it gets too cold. Water and CO₂freeze….” ¹⁰³ Also if located too far out a higher concentration of CO₂ would be required to absorb enough energy from the sun to keep water liquid, and this would reduce the concentration of Oxygen to the point that animal life would be impossible. It turns out that any planet that supports human life has to be located precisely on the inner edge of this Zone. And that is exactly where Earth is located in our solar system.

Our Sun: “Obviously, the key to continued life on earth is the sun, whose nuclear fusion…provides us with consistent warmth and energy (from) ninety-three million miles away.” And upon close inspection, our sun proves to be an exceptional star.. “It is among the ten percent most massive stars in the galaxy.” The other 90% are too small to provide the correct colors in the light spectrum or sufficient heat and energy to sustain life. ¹⁰⁴

Our sun is the right mass, projects the right balance of colors in light to support life, is composed of the right content of metals to have built an “Earth-size habitable planet,” is highly stable in light output which stabilizes our climate on earth, and travels in a nearly circular orbit which helps keep our solar system from moving out of its safe zone. Thus our sun has “the right mass, light, composition, distance, orbit, location – to nurture life on a circling planet. This makes our sun and Earth rare indeed.” ¹⁰⁵

Our Moon: The moon helps support life on Earth in several ways. It “stabilizes the tilt of the Earth’s axis.” If the moon were not there, the tilt could vary erratically, causing large temperatures changes. “The moon’s large size compared to its host planet (Earth) is unique in the inner solar system.” Mercury and Venus, who have no moons, and Mars, who has two tiny moons, are all subject to erratic variations in their tilt. ¹⁰⁶

“The moon also helps…to increase our tides.” Tides sweep nutrients, which wash down rivers from the continents into the oceans, making the oceans nutrient-rich for sea life. Tides also “help keep large-scale ocean circulation going.” This carries heat to the higher northern and lower southern hemispheres, keeping them warmer. Moreover, the moon’s size is just right. If larger, the increased gravitational pull of the moon would slow the earth’s rotation, resulting in extreme temperature variation between day and night and climate disruption. ¹⁰⁷

The Earth’s Mass: Another variable that has to be correct for life to exist is the mass of a planet.Any planet has to “have a minimum mass to retain the atmosphere…for the free exchange of the chemicals of life and to protect inhabitants from cosmic radiation. And you need an oxygen-rich atmosphere to support big-brained creatures like humans. Earth’s atmosphere, 20% oxygen, is just right it turns out.” ¹⁰⁸

“And the planet has to be a minimum size to keep the heat from its interior from being lost too quickly…. If Earth were smaller, like Mars, it would cool down too quickly.” If it were larger, gravity would be stronger and the weight of the rocks would flatten the mountains and a flat Earth would be covered by water, which would eventually become too salty for life to exist. ¹⁰⁹

Plate Tectonics: Plate tectonics refers to the movement of large sections of the Earth’s crust, causing the development of mountain ranges and continental drift. It turns out that Earth is the only planet in the solar system which has such movement because we are the only planet with oceans of water, which are needed “to lubricate and facilitate the movement of the plates.” ¹¹⁰

By helping to develop the mountains and continents, plate tectonics prevents a flat Earth covered with water, and “it also drives the earth’s carbon dioxide-rock cycle… This is critical in regulating the environment through the balancing of greenhouse gases and keeping the temperature of the planet at a livable level.” ¹¹¹

Earth’s Furnace: Deep inside the Earth, intense heat is generated by radioactive isotopes. This radioactive decay creates a dynamo that generates the earth’s magnetic field. “The magnetic field is crucial to life on Earth, because it shields us from low-energy cosmic rays,” which would be dangerous to life. ¹¹²

Lee Srobel sums up: “Giant plates of shifting rock that precariously balance greenhouse gases; decaying radioactive isotopes acting as a life-sustaining under-ground furnace; an internal dynamo that generates a magnet field which deflects cosmic dangers; precision feedback loops that unite biology and meteorology – I just had to pause and marvel at the complex and interconnected processes that orchestrate our planet’s environment.” ¹¹³

Then he concludes, “The tell-tale signs of design are evident from the far reaches of the Milky Way down to the inner core of our planet.” ¹¹⁴

Location, Location, Location: Gonzalez and Richards point out that Earth is located in a position in space which provides an optimal observation point for astronomers and cosmologists. Earth’s position and the clarity of its atmosphere allows us to see vast regions of the cosmos. Thus it appears that we are positioned by a Designer to be able to observe, analyze, and understand much of the universe, including understanding that the universe was planned to allow life to flourish on planet earth.

Richards adds, “Christians have always believed that God testifies to his existence through the book of nature and the book of Scripture.” ¹¹⁵ So here it is. God has given us the opportunity to learn about him from his created universe as well as through his written revelation. God is not silent. He has spoken and continues to speak.

Biochemistry

In this discussion, we draw from information presented in an interview with Michael Behe, Ph.D., who has degrees in chemistry and biochemistry. He has written extensively on these subjects, has lectured in numerous colleges, and has written several books – most notably “Darwin’s Black Box,” in which he makes a strong case against Darwinian evolution. ¹¹⁶

As a biochemist, Behe recognized he was in a position “to investigate whether the evidence points toward Darwinism or (toward) God as the source for living organisms.” He reasoned that since “life is essentially a molecular phenomenon,” the origin of life could be studied at the molecular level. If Darwinian evolution was responsible, it would be able to explain the process that formed the combination of amino acids, proteins, and DNA which yielded life; if indeed there was a Designer who birthed life, then there would be evidence for an intelligence behind the origin of life in the molecular composition of the cell. ¹¹⁷

Irreducible Complexity: While doing his research, Dr. Behe developed the concept of “irreducible complexity.” He explains: “A system…is irreducibly complex if it has a number of different components that all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if you were to remove one of the components, the system would no longer function.” ¹¹⁸ Such a system cannot be built piece by piece (over time) because the entire system has to be there at the same time for it to function at all.

Dr. Behe continued. “Evolution can’t produce a irreducibly complex biological machine suddenly, all at once, because it’s much too complicated…. And you can’t produce it by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor system would be missing a part and consequently couldn’t function.” ¹¹⁹ And, as we shall see, both the cell and the functioning of molecular machines are incredibly complex.

Moreover, Dr. Behe pointed out that Darwin himself said, “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.” ¹²⁰ Yet Dr. Behe found in his studies that the structure and functioning of the cell could not have possibly been developed in such a successive, gradual manner.

Complexity in a Single-Cell Organism: A single-cell organism is described as “a high-tech factory…with..languages…decoding systems, memory banks…elegant control systems…error, failsafe, and proof-reading devices…assembly processes…” and an amazing capacity to replicate itself in a matter of hours. ¹²¹

Complexity in Molecular Machines: Dr. Behe stated, “Life is based on molecular machines…. They haul cargo…turn cellular switches on and off…act as pulleys and cables; electrical machines let current flow through nerves; manufacturing machines build other machines; solar-powered machines capture energy…and store it in chemicals…(they) let cells move, reproduce, and process food. In fact, every part of the cell’s function is controlled by complex, highly calibrated (molecular) machines.” ¹²²

At The Level of Molecules: He further explained, Now we’ve probed to the bottom of life, so to speak – we’re at the level of molecules – and there’s complexity all the way down. We’ve learned the cell is horrendously complicated and that it’s actually run by micro-machines of the right shape, the right strength, and the right interactions.” ¹²³ Darwinian evolution can’t explain this because it’s too complicated to have arisen by gradual increments over time and by Natural Selection.

Dr. Behe then provided four examples of molecular machines which display irreducible complexity: moving cilium, bacterial flagellum, the intra-cellular transportation system, and the system of blood clotting.

Moving Cilium: “Cilia are whip-like hairs on the surface of cells. If the cell is stationary, the cilia move fluid across the cell’s surface.” Cilia are in our lungs; there they move synchronously to clear mucus out. “If the cell is mobile, the cilia row it through a fluid.” Cilia are very complicated. Each “is made up of about 200 protein parts…nine pairs of microtubules…which encircle two single microtubules…connected (together by)…linkers. And each microtubule has a motor protein called dynein. …These three parts – the rods, linkers, and motors – are (absolutely) necessary (for the cilium to slide, bend, and move). If it weren’t for the linkers, everything would fall apart…. If it weren’t for the motor protein, it wouldn’t move at all. If it weren’t for the rods, there would be nothing to move. So,…the cilium is irreducibly complex.” Dr. Behe continued, “You only get the motion of the cilium when you’ve got everything together. None of the individual parts can do the trick by themselves… You need all of them in place.” ¹²⁴

Bacterial Flagellum: Found only in bacteria, the flagellum acts like a propeller that rotates and moves the bacteria around. It can rotate at 10,000 revolutions per minute, stop turning within a quarter turn, and reverse direction at the same speed. It’s been called “the most efficient motor in the universe”¹²⁵ Drawings of a flagellum look very much like a machine made by man, who obviously had to use intelligence to do so.

Movement caused by a flagellum looks like the propulsion of a motor boat, but nobody is steering it. So how does it know where to go? “It turns out it has sensory systems…(to) tell it when to turn on and …off, so it guides it to food, light or whatever it’s seeking.” ¹²⁶ It, in effect, has a guidance system which sends it to its destination.

Dr. Behe explained that it takes at least three parts – a paddle, a rotor, and a motor – all together made up of 30 to 35 various proteins, for the flagellum to function. And, all these parts must be present at the same time. Remove one part and it doesn’t function at all. Thus it, like the cilium, is irreducibly complex. That is to say, all parts had to be designed perfectly to fit together, be present and assembled at the same time for the flagellum to operate.

He continued, “We do know that these systems have a number of very specifically matched components that do not lend themselves to a gradualistic explanation. (And) We know that intelligence can assemble complex systems.” ¹²⁷ Thus it is reasonable to conclude that an Intelligent Agent designed the flagellum.

The Intra-Cellular Transport System: Dr. Behe described these systems: “Cells of all organisms – except bacteria – have a number of compartments…. There’s the nucleus, where the DNA resides; the mitochondria, which produces energy; the endoplasmic reticulum, which processes proteins; the Golgi apparatus, which is a way station for proteins that are being transported elsewhere; the lysosome, which is a garbage disposal unit; secretory vesicles, which store cargo before it’s sent out of the cell; and the peroxisome, which helps metabolize fats.

“Each compartment is sealed off by a membrane…(and) there are more than 20 different sections in each cell. Cells are constantly getting rid of old stuff and manufacturing new components…designed to work in one room but not in others. Most new components are made at a central location in the cell on things called ribosomes…. The ribosome…(is) an automated factory that can synthesize any protein that it is instructed to make by DNA.” ¹²⁸

Then there is a transportation system which gets “these new components into the right rooms where they can operate.” This calls for another complicated system. “You’ve got to have molecular trucks which are enclosed and have motors attached to them…highways for them to travel along. You’ve got to be able to identify which components are supposed to go into which truck…. So there has to be a signal attached to the protein – sort of a ticket – …. The truck has to know where it’s going, which means having a signal on the truck itself and a complementary signal on the compartment where the truck is supposed to unload its cargo. When the truck arrives…you’ve got to have a way for the cargo to get out of the truck and into the compartment…that involves other components recognizing each other, physically opening up, and allowing the material to go inside.

“So you’ve got numerous components, all of which have to be in place or nothing works…. Now, does this microscopic transportation system sound like something that self-assembled by gradual modifications over the years? I don’t see how it could have been. To me, it has all the earmarks of being designed.” ¹²⁹

The System of Blood Clotting: The reader may be surprised to learn that blood clotting is an irreducibly complex biological system, but it certainly is. When our skin is cut or scraped, the blood has to clot in the right place, in the right amount, and within a strict time frame to stop the blood flow and keep us from bleeding to death. It has to clot only at the place of injury, and especially not at other locations in the body. Dr. Behe tells us that “the system of blood clotting involves a highly choreographed cascade of ten steps that use about twenty different molecular components.” And the whole system has be in place for it to work at all. He adds, “To create a perfectly balanced blood-clotting system, clusters of protein components have to be inserted all at once. That rules out a gradualistic Darwinian approach and fits the hypothesis of an Intelligent Designer.” ¹³⁰

Summary: Dr. Behe has demonstrated that there are complex biological systems which could not have been created by Darwin’s gradual, successive, modifications over time, because these systems require all of their parts to be perfectly matched and present at the same time for the system to function. Further, Dr. Behe points out that there is an alternative explanation available for these systems, namely that they were “purposefully and intentionally designed by an Intelligent Agent.” ¹³¹ Thus, as with the evidence from cosmology, physics, and astronomy, the evidence from biochemistry also points toward the existence of a transcendent Designer-Creator who made the universe and created life itself.

Biological Information

DNA Provides Information: DNA, which is found in every cell of the body, provides the information needed to generate “all of the proteins out of which our bodies are built.” There is an enormous amount of information in our DNA, even more than in the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. It contains instructions which tell the cell how to build proteins which are necessary for life. These instructions are unveiled, copied, messaged, carried to the ribosome – a molecular factory; the protein is then built and transported to the right location – all done in response to the information given by DNA. This process can “yield up to 20,500 different kinds of proteins.” ¹³²

When faced with the detailed complexity and organization of this process, some scientists have concluded that this process could not have resulted from random chemical processes, but rather must have come into being as the result of design by an intelligent agent.

An interview with Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D. by Lee Strobel provides the source for much of the information that follows in our discussion about biological information.

The Origin of Life Requires Information: Lee Strobel began the interview by quoting Bernd-Olaf Kuppers who wrote, “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.” ¹³³ Dr. Meyer agreed with this and added, “You need instructions (in the cell about) how to build the cell’s most important components, which are mostly proteins. And we know that DNA is the repository for a digital code containing the instructions for telling the machinery how to build proteins. Kuppers recognized that this was a critical hurdle in explaining how life began…”¹³⁴

Advocates of Darwinian evolution believe that life came into being out of a “prebiotic soup.” But, as Dr. Meyer points out, “even if you had the right chemicals to create a living cell, you would (also) need (the right) information…to arrange them in very specific configurations in order to perform biological functions…. (And) the cell’s critical functions are usually performed by proteins and the proteins are the products of assembly instructions stored in DNA.” Dr Meyer continued, “The origin of information in DNA – which is necessary for life to begin – is best explained by an intelligent cause rather than” by a naturalistic cause. ¹³⁵

The information in DNA is stored “in the form of a four-character digital code.” These four characters or “bases” are “chemicals called adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine, represented by the letters A, G, C, and T. When these are properly arranged, they instruct the cell to sequence amino acids which then build proteins. ¹³⁶

Dr Meyer continued, “Proteins…are the key functional molecule in the cell; you can’t have life without them. (And) where do they come from? Well that question forces a deeper issue – what’s the source of the assembly instructions in DNA that are responsible for the one-dimensional sequential arrangements of amino acids that create the three-dimensional shapes of proteins? Ultimately the functional attributes of proteins derive from information stored in the DNA molecule.” So the critical question is: Where does the DNA information come from? If you can’t explain that, you can’t explain life, because that’s the information that makes life possible in the cell. ¹³⁷

Lee Strobel wanted to probe further. He wondered if there was any reasonable naturalistic explanation for the emergence of life. Three possible processes were examined: Random Chance, Natural Selection, and Chemical Affinities and Self-Ordering.

Random Chance: While this explanation for the origin of life is popular among many in the culture, it has been discarded by most origin-of-life scientists. The mathematical probabilities that DNA sequencing and the process required for life to emerge could occur by chance alone are simply too remote to take seriously.

Natural Selection: The question raised here is, can natural selection operating on chance occurrences, make it possible for life to emerge? Dr. Meyer says no. “Natural selection…most certainly does not work at the level of chemical evolution, which tries to explain the origin of the first life from simple chemicals…. Darwinists admit that natural selection requires a self-replicating organism to work…. However, to have reproduction, there has to be cell division. And, that presupposes the existence of information-rich DNA and proteins. But that is the problem – those are the very things they’re trying to explain.” ¹³⁸ So, natural selection is no explanation at all.

Chemical Affinities and Self-Ordering: Advocates of self-organizing theories considered that since proteins are composed of long lines of amino acids, there might be “some forces of attraction between the amino acids that would cause them to line up to create proteins which perform the functions that keep the cell alive.” But experiments showed “that amino acids didn’t demonstrate (the required) bonding affinities.” ¹³⁹

DNA sequencing that results in life is irregular and it corresponds to the function of the protein. And, this sequencing is different for different proteins. Dr. Meyer elaborates: “Whenever we encounter these two elements – irregularity that’s specified by a set of functional requirements…we recognize this information…is invariable the result of mind – not chance, not natural selection, and not self-organizational processes.” ¹⁴⁰

Further, Dr. Meyer pointed out that “in DNA each individual base or letter (A, G, C, or T), is chemically bonded to the sugar-phosphate backbone of the molecule. That’s how they’re attached to the DNA’s structure. But – and here’s the key point – there is no attraction or bonding between the individual letters themselves. So there’s nothing chemically that forces them into any particular sequence. The sequencing has to come from somewhere else. (With) DNA, neither chemistry or physics arranges the letters into the assembly instructions for proteins. Clearly, the cause comes from outside the system…and that cause is Intelligence.” ¹⁴¹

A Convincing Case: Lee Strobel concluded that Dr. Meyer had “made a convincing case that intelligence – and intelligence alone” ¹⁴² is the best explanation for the complex and precise information in DNA, and that the presence of such information is evidence for a Designer of life.

The Cambrian Explosion: Dr. Meyer also views the “Cambrian explosion,” where many new advanced life forms were introduced in a relatively short period of geologic time, as further confirmation of the principle that a Designer would be required to bring into being not only the genetic information found in DNA, but also the biological information required to build new organisms.

He explains that “DNA provides some but not all of the information…needed to build a new organism…. DNA builds proteins…(which) have to be assembled into…different kinds of cells, and those cells have to be arranged into tissues…(which)have to be arranged into organs, and organs have to be arranged into…body plans.” ¹⁴³

He continued, “So when you encounter the Cambrian explosion, with its huge and sudden appearance of radically new body plans (new creatures), you realize you need lots of new biological information.” Since all the information needed to produce new creatures is not in DNA, he asks, “Where does the new information come from that’s not attributable to DNA?” which produced the development of various life forms (fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals) from the molecular level to cells, to tissues, to organs, and to various body parts? Dr. Meyer believes the answer is obvious. This information had to be designed by an Intelligent Agent. ¹⁴⁴

Of interest is another feature of the “Cambrian explosion.” When these new biological forms appeared on the scene, they possessed radically new body plans. And as time passed these body plans experienced minor variations. Neo-Darwinism predicts the opposite: It would expect that minor changes over time would result in major changes. Here, major changes appeared suddenly and small changes followed.

Thus, when we look at the Cambrian explosion with these features: 1) the relatively sudden appearance of new creatures, 2) initial major changes in bodily form followed by minor variations, and 3) the necessity of some guiding hand in the form of information to sequence movement from the molecular level to finished new organisms, it is reasonable to conclude that the best explanation for these events is that they are the work of an Intelligent Designer.

Darwinian Chemical Evolution Threatened: These discoveries in biological information seriously threaten Darwinian evolution and chemical evolutionary theories as viable. “Naturalism cannot answer the fundamental problem of how to get from matter and energy to biological function without the infusion of information from an intelligence. Information is not something derived from material properties; in a sense, it transcends matter and energy.” ¹⁴⁵

Summary: “What else can generate information but intelligence? What else can account for the rapid appearance of a staggering variety of fully formed complex creatures that have absolutely no transitional intermediates in the fossil record? The conclusion (is) compelling: an intelligent entity has quite literally spelled out evidence of his existence through the four chemical letters in the genetic code” ¹⁴⁶ and has also revealed himself through the rapid emergence of multiple new complex creatures in a relatively short period of geologic time.

“Information is the hallmark of mind. And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that’s far greater than our own – a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent Designer who’s amazingly creative.” ¹⁴⁷

Conscious Experience

Consciousness is a Universal Experience: My own personal conscious experience is very real to me, but the conscious experience of others is not directly known to me. I cannot access the conscious experience of another person and they cannot access mine. However, I can be very sure that other people have conscious experience for two reasons. First, I reason that since I possess consciousness and since they are human and I am human, that it makes sense to believe that they also possess consciousness. Second, other people show signs of having conscious experience. Indicators include verbalized self-references indicating awareness of self, of others, of surroundings, of ideas, of thoughts, of opinions and so on. Thus we may conclude, with great certainty, that everyone in the world has conscious experience.

Consciousness Manifested: As an individual, I am able to be aware of myself, think about my experiences, think about my impressions, even to think about my thoughts. I can evaluate, reflect, ponder, analyze, form opinions, construct logical arguments, agree or disagree, like or dislike, love or hate, feel peace or tension, feel pleasure or pain. I can weigh evidence, consider pros and cons, evaluate alternatives, build a case for or against something, and make decisions regarding my thoughts, speech and behavior.

I have an awareness of myself in real space and time. I can think about the past, the present, and the future. I am aware of my inner self, my body, the physical world – things, the social world – people, and the spiritual world – God.

I am a “Me.” I am a “Self.” I experience “Myself” every day of my life.

The Origin of Conscious Experience: So, what’s the origin of consciousness? Where does it come from? Is it caused by biology? Is it solely the result of the random activity of atoms? Or, do we have consciousness because God made us “in His image” with an immaterial soul? Among scientists there is a difference of opinion about this.

Science Supports the Concept of Soul: Some scientists have concluded that man has a spirit as well as a body. Wilder Penfield, the “father of modern neurosurgery,” began his career believing that consciousness came from the neurons in the brain. But after “performing surgery on more than a thousand epileptic patients, he encountered concrete evidence that the brain and mind are actually distinct from each other, although they clearly interact.” ¹⁴⁸

In 2001, a “British study provided evidence that consciousness continues after a person’s brain has stopped functioning and he or she has been declared clinically dead. It was dramatic new evidence that the brain and mind are not the same, but they’re distinct entities.” ¹⁴⁹

In yet another study by Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick, about ten percent of “sixty-three heart attack victims who were declared clinically dead but were later revived…reported having well structured lucid thoughts processes, with memory information and reasoning during the time their brains were not functioning. …The once skeptical Parnia said the scientific findings so far would support the view that mind, ‘consciousness,’ or the ‘soul’ is a separate entity from the brain.” Further, he suggested that the brain may be a means of expressing the mind, and that if the brain is injured, causing a person to lose some aspects of his mind, that this doesn’t necessarily prove that the brain causes the mind, but means only that the mechanism of the brain is damaged. ¹⁵⁰

The Naturalistic Approach: In another scientific camp, researchers are still looking for a purely physical explanation for consciousness, while admitting they have no answer as to how the brain might produce this experience.Some express great “faith that science will eventually discover a completely naturalistic explanation.” ¹⁵¹

The Bible and Conscious Experience: The Bible teaches that man is a dichotomy, made up of both body and soul. When the body dies, the Bible tells us that the soul departs from it. When Adam was formed by God, his body was made first and then God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” Genesis 2:7 KJV. Also in Zechariah 12:1 KJV it reads, “The Lord…formed the spirit of man within him.” It is interesting to note that while believing Jews and Christians have known this for millennia, modern science has just recently, in the last fifty years or so, come to understand that this must be true, because of scientific evidence.

To discuss the topic of human consciousness, we look at an interview with J. P. Moreland, Ph. D. Dr. Moreland has degrees in chemistry, theology, and philosophy and has written extensively on this subject.

Definitions: Dr. Moreland defines consciousness as “what you are aware of when you introspect. …consciousness consists of sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs, and free choices that make us alive and aware.” Next he defines what is meant by the soul. “The soul is the ego, the ‘I,’ or the self, and it contains our consciousness. It also animates our body. That’s why when our soul leaves our body, the body becomes a corpse. The soul is immaterial and distinct from the body.” ¹⁵²

Evidence for the Soul: Near death reports may provide a unique window into experiences that support the concept that there is a soul distinct from the body. Dr. Moreland comments: “People are clinically dead, but sometimes they have a vantage point from above, where they look down at the operating table that their body is on. Sometimes they gain information they couldn’t have known if this were just an illusion happening in their brain. One woman died and she saw a tennis shoe that was on the roof of the hospital. How could she have known this? “¹⁵³

He continued, “If I am just my brain, then existing outside the body is utterly impossible.” ¹⁵⁴ He concluded by indicating that while not every near-death report may have validity, that doesn’t mean that we should dismiss them all as invalid. And such stories make sense only if one assigns an immaterial soul to the person who reports them. The content and number of these stories suggests that each person has a soul.

Additional Evidence: Then the question was asked: “What positive evidence is there that consciousness and the self are not merely a physical process of the brain?” ¹⁵⁵

Dr. Moreland replied that neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield provided experimental data by “electrically stimulating the brains of epilepsy patients…(He) found he could cause them to move their arms or legs, turn their heads or eyes, talk, or swallow. Invariably the patient would respond by saying ‘I didn’t do that. You did.’ (Thus) ‘the patient thinks of himself as having an existence separate from his body.'”¹⁵⁶ Dr. Moreland pointed out that functions that came from the conscious self such as beliefs or decisions could not be elicited by brain stimulation and were separate from the obvious functions of the brain.

Also when researcher Roger Sperry studied the brain’s right and left hemispheres, he “discovered the mind has a causal power independent of the brain’s activities.” ¹⁵⁷ As the result of such research projects, “many brain scientists have been compelled to postulate the existence of an immaterial mind.” ¹⁵⁸

A Philosophical Argument: Dr. Moreland gave this argument for consciousness. “There are things that are true of my consciousness that aren’t true of anything physical. …For example, some of my thoughts…(are) true,…some…false…. However none of my brain states are true or false. No scientist can…(examine) my brain and say…that… brain state is true and that one’s false. So there’s something true of my conscious states that are not true of any of my brain states, and consequently they can’t be the same thing.” ¹⁵⁹

He continued, “Furthermore, my consciousness is inner and private to me. By simply introspecting, I have a way of knowing about what’s happening in my mind that’s not available to you, my doctor, or a neuroscientist. A scientist could know…what’s happening in my brain…but he couldn’t know…what’s happening in my mind…. He has to ask me.” ¹⁶⁰ This suggests that the experience of consciousness cannot be the result of brain activity and is separate from such activity.

The Soul and Brain Damage: Dr. Moreland gave an example of a young woman who had a serious accident on her honeymoon. “She was knocked unconscious and lost all her memories and a good bit of her personality.” ¹⁶¹ After the accident, she did not even remember getting married. During her recovery, she came to understand she had been married and married her husband again. Here is a woman who had lost old memories and had lost some of her personality traits, and who later gained new memories and new personality traits. In her conscious mind, her memory and personality had changed. But she was the same person. Her sense of self was intact but her brain function had been altered.

Dr. Moreland commented, “If I were just my consciousness, when my consciousness was different, I’d be a different person.” ¹⁶² But this woman was the same person even though her conscious experience had changed. This means we are not the same thing as our consciousness. We are a “self or soul that contains my (our) consciousness.” This then is evidence for the existence of the soul.

Implications of the Materialistic View: So, if man has no soul and if consciousness is merely the result of brain activity, what would that look like? First, if brain activity is all there is, there can be no real consciousness. We could not be self-aware. Second, there would be no free will. My brain would be controlled by the random activity of atoms and what would seem to be choice for me would actually be determined by random forces. Third, there would be no life after death because there would be no spirit or soul to live after the body dies.

But we know these things are not true. We know that we do have self-awareness; we know that we have the ability to exercise choice; and we know that near-death experiences and research on brain function point toward the existence of the soul as distinct from the body.

Computers and Consciousness: Dr. Moreland firmly believes that computers, however sophisticated they may become, will never achieve a conscious state. He explains that “computers have artificial intelligence, not (human) intelligence. …A computer has…no (self-) awareness, no first-person point of view, no insights into problems. A computer doesn’t think,”¹⁶³ in the sense of reflecting on itself. A computer can do only what it’s programmed to do. It can’t perform beyond that. A computer doesn’t have opinions or emotions; it cannot be surprised – it either knows something or it doesn’t. It can perform complex operations and handle an enormous amount of memory, but it doesn’t think about these things. A computer is not a programmer, it’s a programmee

Dr. Moreland continues, “Computers might be able to imitate intelligence, but they won’t ever have consciousness. We can’t confuse behavior with what it’s like to be alive, awake, and sentient. A future super intelligent computer might be programmed to say it’s conscious or even behave as if it were conscious, but it can never truly become conscious” ¹⁶⁴ because it can never have the sense of being which humans have.

Animals and Consciousness: Dr. Moreland believes that animals have some level of consciousness. He points out that the Bible uses the words ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ to refer to animals, and he observes that they are not simply biological machines. However, there are limiting factors. He believes “the animal soul is much simpler than the human soul.” ¹⁶⁵

It is clear that human beings have an intellect that is far superior to that of the animals. This is evidenced by the advanced skills that people exhibit in language, mathematics, science, computer design, engineering, philosophy, music, art, and drama. This is not seen among the animals. We observe that the behavior of humans is mostly intentional and self-directed by their intellect, whereas the behavior of animals is much more the result of instinct.

“Augustine said animals have their thoughts but they don’t think about their thinking. And while we have beliefs about our beliefs, animals don’t. You see, the human soul is…(in the Bible’s words) made in the image of God. So we have self-reflection…whereas the animals don’t….” ¹⁶⁶

Consciousness – A Problem for Evolutionists: The problem consciousness poses for evolutionists is that Darwinism can’t explain how mere matter could produce conscious experience. Dr. Moreland asks, “How then, do you get something totally different – conscious, living, thinking, feeling, believing creatures – from materials that don’t have that?” ¹⁶⁷ If matter doesn’t possess these properties, it is irrational to expect it to produce them. However, Dr. Moreland observes, “If you begin with an infinite mind (God), then you can explain how finite minds could come into existence. That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense…is the idea of getting a mind to squirt into existence by starting with brute, dead, mindless matter.” ¹⁶⁸

More Problems For Darwinism: Even though science can’t explain how matter could produce conscious experience, there are scientists who insist this is true. Dr. Moreland describes four difficulties with that belief.

First, scientists who hold this view are not defining matter the way true naturalist do – as stuff that can be “described by the laws of chemistry and physics.” They are saying that matter contains “the potential for mind to emerge. …They’ve abandoned a strict scientific view of matter and adopted a view that’s closer to theism than atheism. Now they’re saying that the world began not just with matter, but with stuff that’s mental and physical at the same time. Yet they can’t explain where these pre-emergent mental properties came from in the first place.” ¹⁶⁹

Second, is the problem of determinism. Dr. Moreland continued, “If consciousness is just a function of the brain, then I’m my brain…(which) functions according to the laws of chemistry and physics.” This would mean that all thoughts would be determined by physics and chemistry, and they don’t want to say that all mental functioning is determined.

“Third, if mind emerged from matter without direction of a superior intelligence, why should we trust anything from the mind as being rational or true?” ¹⁷⁰ And why should we believe that the ideas of the Darwinists have any validity at all?

Fourth, Dr. Moreland asks, “If my mind were just a function of the brain, there would be no unified self. Remember, brain function is spread throughout the brain…” ¹⁷¹ But when part of the brain is damaged, the person still knows they are a person. Another aspect of the unified self has to do with sensory experience, such as vision, hearing, and touch. When we experience sensory stimulation, many different parts of the brain are activated at the same time. But these sensations are not experienced as separate events; they are bound together by a unified self who experiences them as a whole. Thus, both the sense of personhood and the unified experience of complex sensory stimulation, that is, the experience of a unified self, is evidence for the existence of consciousness and the soul as distinct from the brain instead of being products of the brain.

A View That Makes Sense: Dr. Moreland concluded by saying that “The atheist creation story is inadequate and false. And yet there is an alternative explanation that makes sense (out) of all the evidence: our consciousness came from a greater Consciousness. The Christian worldview begins with thought and feeling and belief and choice. That is, God is conscious. God has thoughts…beliefs…desires…awareness, he’s alive, he acts with purpose. And because we start with the mind of God, we don’t have a problem with explaining the origin of our mind.” From this we can deduce that God is “rational, intelligent, creative, sentient. And…invisible, because that’s the way conscious beings are.”¹⁷²

The Creator is Revealed: As we have noted, conscious experience gives us a perspective that enables us to understand that we have a soul or a self. This understanding then leads us to the inescapable conclusion that we have been made by a God who is super intelligent, conscious, and sentient Himself.

Summary and Conclusions

Summary

Dr. Stephen Meyer summarizes: We have here “a half dozen evidences that point to a transcendent intelligent Cause.” ¹⁷³ We learn from these examples that God is transcendent, intelligent, brilliant beyond definition, and personally conscious and aware of what he is doing. This “gives us heightened confidence – from science – that God exists. The weight of the evidence is very impressive…sufficiently conclusive to say that theism provides the best explanation for the ensemble of the scientific evidence we’ve been discussing.” ¹⁷⁴

He continues: “When we look at the evidence…from cosmology, physics, biology, and human consciousness, we find theism has amazing explanatory scope and power. The existence of God explains this broad range of evidence more simply, adequately, and comprehensively than any other worldview, including naturalism and pantheism.” ¹⁷⁵

Conclusions

Scientific Evidence Reveals God: This evidence shows us four things: First, that God actually exists; Second, it makes us more aware of his incredible creative works; Third, we learn he has the right answers to the critical questions of life; and Fourth, it tells us about his amazing Nature.

Science Reveals God in His Works: We saw that the evidence points to the God who brought the universe into being from absolutely nothing, put in place physical and astronomical constants which permitted life to exist on earth, designed complex systems that allow life to exist and function at the cellular level, built molecular information systems in DNA, and endowed men and women with conscious experience and an immaterial soul.

Theism gives the Right Answers: Also, we realized that a theistic view answers many of the questions of life which no one else can answer. It tells us: it was God who created everything from nothing; it was God who fine-tuned the universe; it was God who designed the cell, DNA, and life itself; it was God who gave man consciousness and an eternal immaterial soul; and it was God who gave man free will and made him for himself in order to have a relationship of love with Him. Evolutionary theory can’t explain how these things could happen; but it all makes sense when you acknowledge God as the Source of everything. And it is exciting to realize that modern science points toward God in this way.

Science Reveals the Nature of God: Cosmology tell us that he transcends matter, energy, light, space, and time; that he is eternally existent with no beginning; that he is immaterial (spirit); that he exercises free will which means that he is cognizant of alternatives and also personal; that he possesses great intellect; that he has enormous power; and that he created everything from absolutely nothing.

The discipline of Physics emphasizes God’s intelligence, tells us that he has an aesthetic sense creating beautiful, elegant, and efficient systems, and that he continues to be involved in the world he has created. We learn from Astronomy that God is precise, careful, and exacting in creating a livable habitat for man, implying that he has care and concern for us. It also suggests that God purposefully made the universe so that we could explore it and discover him.

Biochemistry reveals that God remains active in our world, that he is the Source of life, and that he is a conscious, purposeful, rational, and intelligent Designer. Finally, the study of Human Consciousness shows us that God himself is conscious, immaterial, intelligent, totally aware, and sentient.

The Picture of God: When we put this all together, we see that God is both immensely intelligent and very powerful on the one hand, and caring and attentive to us on the other hand. He has all power, he loves, and he is personal. What an amazing God! And all of this agrees with the picture of God we find in the Bible. This should not surprise us. The God of Creation and the God of the Bible are one in the same.

Science and the Bible Agree

Science Reflects the Words of the Bible: Two thousand years ago the writer of the Biblical book of Hebrews wrote, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Hebrews 11:3. NIV.

The Big Bang theory holds that the universe came into being in an instant from a single point of origin from absolutely nothing due to the action of a immaterial transcendent Agent. This verse states that the visible universe came from an invisible Source, and it tells us that this Source was a transcendent God who spoke the universe into being. So this verse, written 2,000 years earlier, fits perfectly with the science of today.

The writer, and all who would read and believe through the centuries, came to know this “by faith,” not by science. God revealed this information long ago to the world to show how creation occurred, and he expected people to believe him without the science. It’s nice to have scientific confirmation, but it’s not necessary to have it to believe in God.

In the article that follows, we discuss evidence for God from Conscience and Moral Law.

Why Christians Believe in God: Conscience & Moral Law

Evidence for God From Conscience and Moral Law

There is a Moral Law

People just know that some things are right and other things are wrong. We reflect this in our thinking, speech, and behavior almost every day. C. S. Lewis tells us that “this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. …because people thought everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it…they thought the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to everyone.” ¹⁷⁶ For our purposes we will refer to this innate sense of right and wrong as Conscience or Moral Law.

“When we say the Moral Law exists, we mean that all people are impressed with a fundamental sense of right and wrong.” ¹⁷⁷ This does not mean that every person has a perfect understanding of morality. Some people deny moral principles or suppress moral urges to avoid moral responsibility. It does mean “that there are basic principles of right and wrong which everyone knows.” ¹⁷⁸

Unless you are talking with someone who’s mental function is grossly damaged by sociopathy or psychosis or brain damage, you will find that everyone has some sort of moral sense. Only the most callous among us have suppressed or denied their conscience. Most people agree that murder, theft, adultery, lying, and selfishness are wrong.

Our Premise: Our premise is that Moral Law exists, God put it there, and its presence provides evidence for the existence of God. The evidence, in this case, comes from conscious experience, that is from a subjective moral sense, not from science, creation, or Biblical revelation. Nevertheless, this experience of Conscience, universally shared, once understood becomes a convincing argument for the Reality of God.

The presence of Moral Law suggests that there is “an absolute moral obligation, …binding on all people, at all times, in all places. And an absolute Moral Law implies an absolute Moral Law Giver,” ¹⁷⁹ who is God. This Absolute Moral Law then exists outside of us in the Mind of God as well as inside us, in our Conscience where he put it. Thus the Moral Law in us, tells us that there are transcendent moral principles imposing themselves on us which did not come from us, but from God.

How do we Know the Moral Law Exists?

We know for the following reasons:

Denial of Moral Values Reveals an Inconsistency: A relativist, a person who believes there is no absolute truth or moral values, may say, “There are no moral values.” What he doesn’t realize is that his statement reveals that he does hold certain moral values, the moral right to say what he thinks and the moral value of expecting others to accept him as a person with that opinion. So, with his denial, he is inconsistent and betrays the fact that he actually holds moral values himself. ¹⁸⁰

We Reveal the Moral Law in our Speech: People say things like: “That’s not fair.” “You lied to me.” “That’s wrong.” “Don’t treat me that way.” “You cheated.” “I want my fair share.” “There’s no justice in that.” She can be trusted.” “He’s an honest man.” “You are so kind.” C. S. Lewis adds a few more sayings: “How’d you like it if someone did the same to you?” “That’s my seat, I was here first.” “Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine.” “Come on, you promised.” ¹⁸¹

What all these statements have in common is that they all appeal to a moral standard which the speaker knows and which he expects the hearer to know as well. Why would anyone appeal to a moral standard if there is none, and why appeal if the hearer would not understand that such a standard exists? But we know there is a standard and so do the people with whom we speak. C. S. Lewis comments that such statements are “not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him…(but) is appealing to some kind of (moral) standard …” ¹⁸² when he objects to it.

This is also true with moral words like: theft, murder, adultery, racism, abuse, fraud, slander, good, bad, right, wrong and many others. These words and others like them appeal to a moral standard and they are found in the speech of virtually everyone.

The Moral Law is Shown by People’s Reactions: People who say “That’s just your opinion.” about moral issues nevertheless show that they have moral values by their reaction when these values are breached to their disadvantage. If their spouse is unfaithful (adultery), if their life is threatened (murder), if their daughter is raped, if someone trashes their reputation (slander), they will object strongly. But on what grounds? They will talk of broken promises or say “You have no right.” or wish someone to be punished or claim unfairness. And all these are moral objections.

When planes flew into the twin towers in New York City on 9-11 we were all outraged. ¹⁸³ We couldn’t believe that human beings could be so depraved as to take plane-loads of innocent people hostage and kill them as well as people on the ground. This was beyond the pale. This act disavowed any pretense of morality. It was pure evil. How did we know it was wrong? Our instantaneous reaction told us that it was, and that reaction had to be based on the Moral Law which is in us. Osama Bin Laden may have thought he had reason to do this, but had we flown planes into his buildings, he would have objected on similar grounds .

Geisler and Turek point out that Moral Law may not be apparent from our actions, but is revealed by our reactions. And it may not be the standard by which we treat others, but it is the standard by which we expect others to treat us. Also it may “not describe how we actually behave, but rather it prescribes how we ought to behave.” ¹⁸⁴

The Moral Law is Shown by People’s Excuses: People make excuses for their immoral behavior all the time. “Making excuses is a tacit admission that the Moral Law exists. Why make excuses if no behavior is actually immoral?” ¹⁸⁵

We Need the Moral Law to Tell the Difference Between Good and Evil: Without a Moral Law how can we distinguish between right and wrong, justice and injustice, love and hate, freedom and slavery, life and murder, kindness and abuse, benevolence and cruelty? We know there is a difference in each case. The Moral Law in us defines the differences. Without it we couldn’t make the distinctions we need to make in order to think clearly about moral truth and make good moral decisions.

Moral Codes Across Cultures are Remarkably Similar: C. S. Lewis provides an extensive list of moral codes from different cultures and ages in the Appendix of his book, “The Abolition of Man.” ¹⁸⁶ In this list we find that the moral codes of cultures as diverse as Chinese, Hindu, Egyptian, Babylonian, American Indian, Greek, Roman, Aborigines, and Norse reflect essentially the same moral laws that are found in the Bible. Professor Lewis observes that while these diverse codes do not agree regarding every particular, they do agree with regard to overriding moral principles.

Such a finding suggests that there is a Moral Law in the hearts and minds of all people. That is, God has given everyone on the earth a Conscience. Thus, we can say the Moral Law is universal because it is found in all cultures and peoples.

Personal Experience Tells us the Moral Law Exists: If I were treated poorly or threatened with physical violence, murder, theft, dishonesty, unfaithfulness, or slander, I would react immediately with the feeling that this is wrong, unfair, or unjust. When approached by people who offer consideration, kindness, compassion, goodness, honor, esteem, truth, honesty, respect, and love, I react with the feeling that this is a good thing.

Because I believe that I am of value, I believe that I should be treated accordingly, and to deny or attack my value is simply wrong. I think these reactions are normal for most of us. People sense that there is a Moral Law which says that they should be treated as persons of value.

Since all people have true value, it follows that we should treat each other with kindness. As Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:27. NIV. There is a Moral Law which says we should do this, both spoken by Jesus and residing within us.

The Source of the Moral Law

The Moral Law Does Not Come From Evolution: As we have discussed earlier, Darwinian evolution cannot explain the origin of human conscious experience. Similarly, it can’t explain the origin of morality. How can atoms, brain cells, mere matter produce the experience of the mind? Dr. J. P. Moreland tells us it is irrational to expect to get “conscious, living, thinking, feeling, believing creatures from materials that don’t have that.” He continues by saying that when “you begin with an infinite Mind (God), then you can explain how finite minds can come into existence. That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense…is the idea of getting a mind to squirt into existence starting with brute, dead, mindless matter.” ¹⁸⁷

Also, evolution is a system based on chance and random activity. There is no logic that can trace how reasoned moral standards could emerge from such a system. Further, if the random movement of atoms were found to be responsible for thinking of any kind, including moral thinking, we could never have confidence in the validity of such thoughts.

When we consider these ideas along with the scientific evidence for the existence of a human soul distinct from the body, we conclude that evolution did not give us the Moral Law.

The Moral Law Does Not Come From Education: Some people wrote to C. S. Lewis, saying that the Moral Law he was talking about was actually the result of education. He replied by explaining that while we do learn morals from parents and teachers, this doesn’t mean that our morals are merely there because of education. He advised that children are taught the multiplication table, but this does not mean that we made it up and it could have been different. This is because it represents actual truth. So, he continued, Moral Law is in the category of actual truth and we know this for two reasons:

First, we know this because essentially the same moral principles are held by people in diverse cultures all over the world, indicating a universal Moral Law. Second, when we think to contrast moral systems such as civilized and savage, we are forced to measure them by a higher standard, indicating that that standard exists in our minds. ¹⁸⁸

The Moral Law Comes From God: We have established that there is a Moral Law and that it presses in on us. Everyone holds some moral values. We appeal to the Moral Law in our speech; we reveal it by our reactions to moral offences; we use excuses for bad behavior; and we must have it to distinguish good from evil. We know it’s there.

It could not have come from evolution because it is too well reasoned, too specific, and too universal to be an accident. On the contrary, these features point to a transcendent Source, God. Also we understand that Moral Law exists apart from education but may be enhanced by it.

It did not come from us. If it had, there would be many unrelated types of morality in the different cultures of the world. It had to come from one source. This source is God. He has to be the Source. C. S. Lewis states that there are essentially two views of how things came into being: Darwinian evolution or God. ¹⁸⁹ We have ruled out the former and so are left with the only other alternative, Creator God.

We have previously given reasons for believing the Bible is the Word of God. (See “Why Christians Believe the Bible” on this web site.) Because of this firm belief, we can run a test. We can compare God’s Moral Law in the Bible with the moral standards which are generally held by people. If the two agree, we will conclude that it was God who created Conscience. As it is, the comparison shows an amazing correspondence between the two. There is much agreement. Thus, the same God who speaks morality in the Bible, speaks morality into the hearts and minds of all people.

The Bible says this in Romans 2:14,15. NKJV. “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselvestheir thoughts accusing or else excusingthem.”

The Moral Law in the Bible clarifies what God’s moral terms are. While we all have a sense of morality about which most of us would agree, our moral concepts may be faulty. After all, we are sinful human beings who deny and rationalize our sins. The Bible gives us an objective standard against which we can measure our moral understanding. Also because the Moral Law is revealed by God in Scripture, we see that it is objective and absolute, unchanging and permanent, not subjective or a matter of opinion, but is the eternal unchanging Word of the Most High God.

Further, when we read the Bible it rings true. The moral principles given there make sense. They seem right. They conform to our idea of what is good. Why? Because these principles are already in our mind. Yes, we have learned morality, but what we did not learn is the sense that the morality we learned is right. This sense has to come from a higher source because it is the standard by which we measure all other standards.

Conclusion: There is a Moral Law within each of us. The best explanation for its existence is that it was put there by God, the Source of all true morality. Thus the presence of the Moral Law in us, is strong evidence for the existence of God.

Next you will find the fourth and final article which presents evidence for the existence of God from Creation, the Bible, Jesus Christ, and Personal Experience, and summarizes all the evidence for God presented in this paper.

Why Christians Believe in God: Creation, the Bible, Jesus Christ, and Personal Experience

Evidence for God From Creation

God Tells us About Himself in His Creation: Three thousand years ago, David, God’s chosen prophet, poet, warrior, and king, wrote, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the works of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. their voice goes out into all the earth, their word to the ends of the world.” Psalm 19:1-4. NIV.

This passage tells us that the heavenly display we see at night and the vast sky we see in daytime are speaking to us about the God who created them. They tell us about his “glory,” his vast intelligence, incredible power, sovereign control, splendor, and majesty. And they tell us about “the works of his hands” which reveal that God made things that work, have a purpose, are useful, and that display his genius. Interestingly, these are the same kinds of things we learn from science when science observes God’s creation. Thus, with or without science, God is speaking to us through his creation.

Think about how you feel when you look into the night sky with an incredible display of the celestial bodies. Or, consider how you feel when looking at a gorgeous sunset over the ocean. These vistas awaken in us feelings and thoughts that there is a transcendent Reality who is vastly beyond our limited selves. I believe God designed it this way because he wants to speak to each of us about the reality of his existence.

Moreover, we see that God is speaking through his creation continually – day and night, to everyone in the whole world. At all times, to everyone, everywhere. There is an urgency here, because he wants everyone to know that he is there.

The Visible Reveals the Invisible: Romans 1:18-20 NIV reads, “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. 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.”

This is another passage telling us that God reveals himself in creation. It states that the things which are made known, God’s eternal power and his divine nature, are invisible. This reminds us that we don’t have to see God to know he is there. His attributes do not have to be made visible to be known. We are invited to look at what we can see, the universe, in order to “see” the invisible God, whom we can’t see.

We can’t see the wind, but we can see the results of its activity; we can’t see God, but we can see evidence of his existence from the results of his creative activity.

God Holds us Responsible: Furthermore, these verses indicate that while the truth of God is there to see, some people suppress this knowledge because of their wickedness. Their penchant for rebellion against God and wish to remove him from their lives crowd out the knowledge of God which he has graciously supplied to all people. Thus, the quote ends with, “so that men are without excuse.”

God reveals himself to us so we will acknowledge him as God, follow and love him. When we refuse, this arouses the wrath of God, and he is justified in being angry, because we have spurned the message and invitation of our own Creator.

Under the Microscope: Psalm 139:13,15,16a. NIV reads, “For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depth of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body.”

Here the Bible describes the cellular formation of a baby in a mother’s womb. The Bible then is telling us that God the Creator, is the God of biology and biological information as well as of all other things he created. Thus the Bible teaches that from the telescope (astronomy) to the microscope (biology) God is creator of all things and he has left a stamp of his Divine work on each part of his creation. The science we have examined confirms this, but this message that God is the God of biology has been around for thousands of years.

Evidence for God from the Bible and Jesus Christ

The Bible

How does the Bible reveal the existence of God? Well first, it states that he exists. The very first verse in the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1. NIV. Also it presupposes God’s existence; it speaks as if everyone already knows he is real, present, active, and engaged.

In the Scripture there are stories of God’s relationship with Adam, Abraham, David, and many others. There are many times when God meets with people in person, in visions, and in dreams. There are teachings, exhortations, and warnings which come from God. His attributes, his power, knowledge, eternality, immateriality, love, and willingness to forgive are described. We are told he wants a relationship with us and he invites us to come to him. The Bible tells us to observe his creation to see that he reveals himself in it. We are reminded that God has a moral order, which we already know about because of our conscience. This confirms to us that he is real because He is the best explanation for why there is a universal moral sense.

So by direct statement, presupposition, descriptions of his attributes and works, by directing our attention to creation and conscience, by all these means and more the Bible tells us that there is a God.

Jesus Christ

Moreover, the Bible presents the Person and life of Jesus Christ as actual history. It tell us that he was God incarnate, born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, taught with Divine authority, did actual miracles, taught the highest moral standards, proclaimed he was the Jehovah-God of the Old Testament, was crucified, died, rose from the dead, appeared to his disciples, and ascended back to heaven. If these things are true, God exists! They couldn’t have happened otherwise.

Why Should we Believe the Bible is True?

A comprehensive presentation of “Why Christians Believe the Bible” is found on this web site. Here, we will cover only the salient points. First, the Bible has been so well preserved from antiquity that we can be confident the Bible we have today is essentially the same as when written. This means we are able to read the actual words God inspired. Second, modern historical analysis indicates the New Testament stories of Jesus are actually true.

Third, the disciples who wrote about Jesus Christ were credible eye witnesses. They wrote simply and factually reporting what they saw, heard, and experienced. They wrote embarrassing details about themselves, indicating their desire was to be truthful. They held themselves to the highest moral standards, also indicating that they told the truth. They wrote within a few years of the events they recorded, suggesting accurate reporting. They died for their beliefs, showing they had become convinced by evidence that their beliefs were true.

Fourth, numerous prophecies in the Bible, some dating back over 1,000 years, were fulfilled exactly as predicted, showing the Bible to be of Divine origin. Who but God can know so far in advance what is going to happen and predict it with amazing accuracy? Incredibly, there are over 300 prophecies from the Old Testament which are fulfilled in the Person and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Fifth, New Testament documents come from a number of independent sources which agree with each other. These include Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James the brother of Jesus, Peter, and the writer of Hebrews. Each of these writers approached essentially the same subject matter somewhat differently, yet all agreed on the truth of God in content and message. Such agreement supports the belief that each writer was reporting actual historical events, in a truthful manner.

Sixth, Secular historians in the first century confirm the basic story of Jesus in the Gospels.

Seventh, The Bible exhibits features that indicate Divine Authorship! The Preservation of the Bible over centuries; the Unity of its message with about 40 authors, written over a period of 1,600 years; hundreds of fulfilled Prophecies; the highest standard of Morality in the world; and its documented Miracles all indicate that the Bible is God’s Word and God’s Truth for all ages.

These are our reasons for believing that the Bible is factual, historically accurate, and trustworthy. When we consider the supporting evidence for the truth of the Bible and the authenticity of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we must conclude that God exists, that he is real, that he speaks to us, and that he cares about us.

We must recognize that it is possible for a person to know little about science and still believe in God because of the words of the Bible. This should not be missed. The Bible is God’s book and it speaks with authority and gives sufficient reason for faith in Christ.

Evidence for God from Personal Experience

Christians experience God in their lives every day. They read the Bible and God speaks to them about Himself, about his promises, his wisdom, his warnings, his protection, his instruction and many times He applies the particular verses read to exactly what’s going on in their lives at the time. When they pray, they sense the Presence of God, and many prayers are answered. Across the world, millions of people pray daily, go to places of worship, and attempt to live according to the way God has shown them.

While the prayers and devotion of so many do not prove that God exists, they strongly suggest that he does because of the comfort, security, satisfaction, guidance, and sense of completeness Christians receive when they place their faith in Jesus Christ. Certainly in their minds, the evidence given to them in their inner person and by answered prayer are sufficient to convince them that God is real.

God has Spoken!

In this paper, “Why Christians Believe in God,” we’ve shown that God has revealed Himself clearly, powerfully, convincingly, and adequately through:

The findings of Science
The Moral Law
His Creation, without the aid of Science
The Bible
The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ
Personal Experience

Truly, God has spoken! How can anyone think otherwise? He has left his mark in the far reaches of the universe, in the diverse systems enabling life on the earth, in biology, in the mind, in conscience, in creation, in the Bible, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the personal experience of millions of people all over the world. Yet, there are some who deny or dismiss this evidence and live as if it didn’t exist or even matter.

Some atheists use the excuse that they don’t see enough evidence to believe in God. Well, God has revealed himself, but he has done it on his own terms. The atheist may demand contemporary tangible evidence, but God is not obligated to provide it. He has already provided enough evidence to convince anyone who will humbly and honestly ask God to reveal himself to them.

Knowing that God has spoken may be a threat to some people. They may not want to give up their way of life or their personal autonomy. However, for those who are receptive, the news that a loving God has spoken and invites them to come to him is the best news possible.

A Moral Dilemma: C. S. Lewis tells us that once we understand that the God who created the universe put the Moral Law in our minds, we are faced with a dilemma. First, this tells us that God is “intensely interested in right conduct – in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty, and truthfulness.” ¹⁹⁰ This lets us know that God is good, which is comforting. But second, we learn that he is also therefore disapproving of most of what we do, which is scary. This places us in a predicament of how we can relate to God who is both good and condemns sin.

Such an understanding, however, is required if a person is able to comprehend what Christianity is all about. C. S. Lewis explains, “It is after you have realized there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the Law, and that you have broken that Law and put yourself wrong with that Power – it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk.” ¹⁹¹

It is only when a person realizes he has a real need, that he can be open to a Source who can meet that need. As C. S. Lewis brings out, Christianity can then tell people that God exists, that a Moral Law exists, that Jesus Christ met the demand of this Law by his death on the cross on our behalf, and that God became a man so he could forgive us and draw us to himself. ¹⁹²

Without Faith it is Impossible to Please God: A key verse reads, “Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly (and diligently) seek him.” Hebrews 11:6. NIV. This verse tells us several things:

Faith is necessary to please God.
Faith includes believing that God exists. This is the primary purpose of this article, to help people realize that there are credible reasons for concluding that God exists.
Faith includes believing in the benevolent nature of God, that he rewards, that he is good, that he loves. The evidence from Science and Scripture tell us this is true.
We have a responsibility toward God. We are to seek him to be reconciled to him, to be forgiven, to fellowship with him, to know him, and to obey him as loving Lord.
We must seek him diligently, not half-heartedly or insincerely. We really need to get down to business about this if we are to find God and forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

Faith Defined: Lee Strobel states that “faith goes beyond merely acknowledging that the facts of science and history (the Biblical record) point toward God. It’s responding to those facts by investing trust in God, a step that’s fully warranted due to the supporting evidence.” ¹⁹³He informs us that “the facts of science and history can take us only so far. At some point, the truth demands a response.” Then he assures us that the truth of God is “something that can be relied on,” and that we are called to trust in the One who provided that truth because He is trustworthy. ¹⁹⁴

Faith includes three things. 1) Learning the facts about God. 2) Making a reasoned decision to believe that those facts are actually true. and 3) Committing one’s life to Jesus Christ, because you really believe the promises of God are true, and because you have decided to align your life with God and his purpose and his plan for your life. This step means that you rest the entire weight of your confidence for forgiveness and relationship with God on Jesus Christ, not on yourself, and that you submit to Jesus Christ as the Lord of your life.

The reader is invited to examine the article on this web site, “The Way to Eternal Life, First Presentation,” to learn how to put his or her faith in Jesus Christ.