Theology, Part 1: The Existence of God
Series: Theology
Chuck Sligh
November 2016 – February 2017
STARTING TEXT: Psalm 14:1
NOTES:
• PowerPoint or ProPresenter 6 slide presentations of this sudy are available upon request at chucksligh@hotmail.com. In fact, I recommend using the slide presentation (and augmenting it if you wish). It will really add to the content of this study.
• Wherever you see “Q.”, it indicates a discussion question, sometimes followed with answers or suggested additions to the discussion, although many are open-ended “opinion” or “my observation” questions that do not require exact answers.
• This is a multi-week study, not meant to be rushed, with no fixed lessons. The participants will get the most out of the study if you go at your own pace, start the next week where you left off and give plenty of time for discussion.
• It is strongly recommended that you purchase and become familiar with Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, before you get to that lesson later in the study.
INTRODUCTION
Beginning today we want to look at what is technically known as THEOLOGY.
Q. Can someone give me a definition of the word “theology.”
A. The word theology comes from two Greek words: Theos, meaning “God” Logos, meaning “word” in its basic form, but when logos is combined with other words, it means “teaching” or “doctrine.” Put theos and logos together and it means “the teaching or doctrine of God.”
In a broad sense theology refers to the entire study of Bible doctrine. In this sense, all Bible doctrines is a study in theology. Preachers go to a theological seminary to study theology, meaning they go to study all about the Christian faith in general, or all that the Bible teaches in general.
But in a narrower sense, the word theology refers specifically to the study of the doctrine of God Himself. It is in this latter sense that we will study theology—the doctrine of God. In this restricted sense, we will examine God’s existence, His attributes, His nature, His names and His works.
So we begin our study of theology by examining THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
We no longer live in an age where the existence of God is taken for granted. In former times people debated such questions as “What is God like?” or “How many gods are there?” That there was a god or gods was tacitly assumed by almost everyone.
That is no longer true today. Our age has been called “the age of skepticism.” Belief in God is no longer considered necessary or, increasingly, even desirable. Christian THINKERS do not dominate the world of philosophy as they once did. Christian ART is no longer the focal point of cultural expression. SCIENCE is no longer populated by theists with an reverent awe of God’s creation. Since scientists cannot find evidence that can be scientifically measured about some being who lives outside of our physical senses, many assume He must not exist. God has not been discovered in a test tube or a telescope. Years ago, the Soviet cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, commented after orbiting the earth, “I didn’t see any God out there.”
So today people are taught that there is no God. Unfortunately, all too often there are serious ramifications if you carry the idea that there is no God to its logical conclusion.
Q. What are some of the ramifications of a rejection of the existence of God?
A. Possible answers:
• If there is no God, we are just accidents of nature—the result of chance evolution, which means that WE HAVE NO INNATE VALUE OR MEANING to our lives.
• If there is no God, we are just animals—more advanced than, but not essentially different from a dog or a cat or a snake or a slug, meaning that we ARE NOT CREATED IN GOD’S IMAGE and therefore HAVE NO PURPOSE IN Life.
• If there is no God, there can be NO ABSOLUTE VALUES OR MORALS. This means that there are no standards to guide behavior. Therefore, almost anything goes. If it feels good, do it.
Illus. – Is it any wonder that two boys walked into a school in Littleton, Colorado a few years ago and indiscriminately killed thirteen young people without a hint of remorse. These two young people were most consistent in their atheism. If there is no God, their own life had no meaning or purpose, and the lives of others were similarly meaningless. On every page of Eric Klebold’s journal and web page, he expressed purposelessness, meaninglessness, valueless-ness and amorality—all of which are the natural product of a rejection of the God of the Bible.
So what about the existence of God? Is the atheist correct? Has science progressed to the point of being able to explain life and the universe adequately without reference to God? Does belief in God rest on emotion or willful intellectual self-blindness, or are there reasonable evidences for God’s existence? That is what we want to look at today and the next few weeks.
Before we look at arguments for the existence of God, let me first make three introductory statements for our consideration.
The first I would like to pose as a question:
Q. Do you believe there is really any such thing as a true atheist.? [GET RESPONSES, AND ASK THOSE WHO ANSWER TO EXPLAIN THEIR ANSWER.]
A. So here are some thoughts about that question: An atheist says, “There is no God.” If you carefully think about that statement, you will realize that it is an absurd, preposterous and arrogant statement which no one on this earth can prove.
The reason is that this is an ABSOLUTE statement. For me to make an absolute statement that is true, I must have absolute knowledge.
Illus. – For instance, if I say, “There is no gold in China” I would be making an absolute statement. However, in order to make such a statement, I would have to have absolute or total knowledge about China. I would need to have conclusive information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or or gold teeth in any mouth in every city, town, village, province and territory in China.
If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for making it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement.
Conversely, for me to say, “There IS gold in China,” I DON’T need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen one single speck of gold in the country and the statement would then be true. (Not sure, but I believe this was adapted from Ron Comfort’s book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Athiest.)
To say categorically, “There is no God,” is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God anywhere in the entire universe. I must have absolute or total knowledge of every place and every fact in the universe. Of course, no one has total knowledge (except God Himself, if indeed He does exist).
Well, okay, let’s say you know TEN PERCENT of all the knowledge in the universe. That’s pretty generous, actually. Thomas once Edison said, “We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything.” So if you knew ten percent of all the knowledge of the universe, you would be exceptionally bright, making people like Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein look like mental pigmies by comparison.
Even if you had such an astounding amount of knowledge, you still could not make the statement, “There is no God” because it could be that somewhere in the other ninety percent of all the knowledge in the universe that you do not know, there may be evidence for God. Ten percent knowledge is not enough—you would have to have total, absolute, all-inclusive knowledge to know with certainty that God does not exist. And if you had total, absolute, all-inclusive knowledge, you would have one of the characteristics of God—OMNISCIENCE (all-knowledge). But you would also have to be OMNIPRESENT (everywhere present).
As Michael Bere says…:
“To the one who says, “Prove that there is a God,” we can reply, “Prove that there is no God.” To prove that there is no God one would have to go to every corner of the universe and look under every rock to show that He is nor there. But while that person was looking for God on one planet, God may be on another. Therefore, it would be necessary for the individual to be everywhere at the same time. Hence in his desire to prove that there is no God, he himself must possess one of the characteristics of God—omnipresence.” (Bible Doctrines for Today, A Beka Books, Pensacola, 1997, p. 83.)
Since no human is either omniscient or omnipresent, no one is able to truthfully make the assertion that God does not exist.
So no one can honestly be a true atheist. A more accurate term for such a person is an AGNOSTIC—that is, one who claims he DOESN’T KNOW if God exists.
2) The second thing I want to clarify is that, in reality, being EITHER an atheist or an agnostic is really only a deception.
In fact, EVERY person innately believes in God, even if he denies His existence intellectually. This, as we will see, is one of the arguments for the existence of God, so we don’t want to get ahead of ourselves.
But this is seen over and over again: Have you ever heard the saying, “There are no atheists in a foxhole”? People who deny God’s existence and even curse and blaspheme Him in everyday existence frequently call upon Him when faced with life-and-death situations. Why?—Because in their heart-of-hearts, people know there is a God.
Illus. – A classic example of this intuitive knowledge of God is the amazing story of Helen Keller. From the age of two, Keller was blind, deaf and without the sense of smell. After months of agonizing and fruitless attempts on the part of her teacher to communicate with this young girl, a miracle occurred.
One day Helen suddenly understood the concept and meaning of running water! From this tiny foundation Keller built a lofty tower of thought, including the ability to use her voice in speaking. She became an educated and articulate human being.
Sometime after she had progressed to the point that she could engage in conversation, she was told of God and His love in sending Christ to die on the cross. She is said to have responded joyfully, “I always knew He was there, but I didn’t know His name.”
Keller became a believer in Jesus Christ and a wonderful testimony of the grace of God. But she instinctively PERCEIVED that there was a God, even though she could not understand Him fully without revelation of Scripture.
This inborn knowledge that there is a God is taught in Romans 1:17-28 [READ, EXPAND AS LED, AND SHOW THAT REJECTION OF GOD IS A MORAL CHOICE, NOT JUST AN INTELLECTUAL BELIEF.]
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”
Illus. – Bill Gothard tells of a university student who came up to see him at the end of a seminar and said defiantly in front of a group of people gathered around Bill, “I don’t believe there is a God.”
Bill said, “That tells me some very revealing things about you.”
That peaked her interest and she asked, “WHAT does it reveal about me?”
Bill responded, “I don’t think we want to discuss this in front of other people. Can we get together privately?”
That REALLY got her interested, so she accepted a private meeting with him. When they got together privately, Bill asked, “Did you ever believe in God?”
She said, “When I was a child I believed in God, but later I realized He was only a myth or a fairy tale.”
Then Bill asked, “Before you rejected the existence of God, did you get involved in major immorality?”
The question initially stunned her. But as she traced back to the time of her incipient atheism, she realized that her questions about God’s existence began after she became involved in perversion that had violated her conscience.
Bill explained why— He pointed out that when people commit serious sin in their lives, the immediate result is guilt whih is a result of God’s built-in law written upon our hearts. At that point hey have two choices—they can try to live with the guilt, which can produce psychological and mental problems, or they can try to get rid of God, who is the source of morality to begin with.
Many people dispose of God because it gives them license to live the way they want to without experiencing guilt. No longer do they have to live according to the norms laid down by GOD. Now they can live by the norms of the world, or society, or their particular group of peers—all guilt-free.
Remember this little statement—“A man’s morality determines his theology.” (EXPAND)
That is not to say that there are not people who genuinely have doubts about God’s existence—it’s just that you need to understand the SOURCE of their doubts and the limits of settling their intellectual doubts before dealing with the underlying cause. Some have been taught that there is no God from childhood, and even though innately they know there is a God, they deny him intellectually because that is the only alternative they have been exposed to. If you can give them cogent arguments for the existence of God and the evidence for Christianity, many are open because it confirms what they instinctively know, even if they deny that knowledge intellectually.
So in fact, both atheism and agnosticism are actually forms of mental deception and blindness.
Note 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 – “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the MINDS of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”
Thus, you have people like those described by the Apostle Paul as those who are “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7) Intuitively, even if he suppresses it, every person knows that God exists.
3) The third and last clarification I would also like to put in the form of a question:
Q. Is it possible to prove the existence of God?
A. Thoughts in addition to participants’ discussion:
Ultimately, not, you cannot really conclusively prove the existence of God.
After all, as Jocobi has said, “A God capable of proof would be no God at all” (Evans, p. 13). In the final analysis, whether you accept the existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith.
That does not mean that it is not a worth our time to provide convincing evidences of the existence of God. God never expects man to exercise blind faith. True faith is based upon REASON and FACTS and EVIDENCE.
“Come now, and let us REASON together, saith the LORD…” said Isaiah in Isaiah 1:18.
Paul especially reasoned with people: [HAVE PARTICIPANTS LOOK UP AND READ & THEN ASK THE GROUP THEIR THOUGHTS ON THESE VERSES.]
• Acts 17:2 says of the Thessalonians: “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days REASONED with them out of the scriptures.”
• In Corinth “…he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” (Acts 18:4)
• Acts 18:19 says “And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.”
• In his defense before Governor Filix we are told that Paul “…reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come…” (Acts 24:25)
Now arguments from reason are not enough, of course. But faith never violates reason, or runs away from reason—it just GOES BEYOND REASON.
A person cannot exercise faith in a God he or she does not intellectually believe exists. In Hebrews 11:6 we are reminded “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
First give a doubter adequate reasons to believe INTELLECTUALLY in Him whom he knows exists innately. Then he can go beyond reason and exercise faith in such a Being. You may find that using the following arguments for God’s existence may trigger their thinking or open the way to present the Gospel or more truth about God to some people.
So we want to look at two types of arguments of God’s existence: BIBLICAL arguments and arguments from REASON.
I. BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS
It is often correctly stated that the Bible does not attempt to prove or argue for the existence of God; it simply ASSUMES it throughout. Williams Evans, in his book, The Great Doctrines of the Bible states: “It does not seem to have occurred to any of the writers of either the Old or the New Testaments to attempt to prove or to argue for the existence of God. Everywhere and at all times it is a fact taken for granted. ‘A God capable of proof would be no God at all.’” (Jacobi)
To a certain extent, this is true. The Bible does not begin with a long treatise on God’s existence. It simply states, “In the beginning God…” These opening words of the Bible assume God’s existence, and this assumption underlies and pervades every book. Furthermore, the Bible assumes that anyone who would deny His existence is a fool – Psalm 14:1 – “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
So it is true that the Bible begins with an assumption of God’s existence and does not usually set out arguments to prove His existence. But that is not the whole story. Look with me at the first part of Psalm 19 and notice that David says clearly that God has revealed His existence in the world around us, a very clear argument for God’s existence – Psalm 19:1-2 – “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.”
Turn also to a passage over in Isaiah 40: Isaiah told backslidden people who were making and worshiping idols to consider the world around them and then think whether or not idols that they made with their own hands could fashion such a world.
The answer is obviously negative. Then he said in verse 26 – “Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.”
The apostle Paul argued before a non-Christian audience that the rain and change of seasons witness to the existence of God (Acts 14:17 – “Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.”).
So the Bible does argue for the existence of God, mostly through the evidence of nature (which we will see falls is known as the Cosmological Argument), though for the most part it simply assumes His existence and assumes that any logical person would accept His existence.
II. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON (EXTRA-BIBLICAL EVIDENCES)
There is much we could about the extra-biblical evidences for the existence of God.
[THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO SHOW THE VIDEO: Startling Proofs: Does God Really Exist?
So let’s look at the evidences for the existence of God from reason:
1) [SHOW NEXT SLIDE] THE UNIVERSAL BELIEF ARGUMENT
This argument states that all cultures everywhere believe in some kind of Supreme Being. Therefore, this Supreme Being must of necessity exist, or He would neither have been thought of to begin with, nor would His existence be universally accepted.
Some people say that God is the invention of man’s fertile mind. However, if you think that through, that is something that is inherently impossible. Man cannot conceive of something that does not have some intrinsic validity. You could no more conceive of the idea of God than you could conceive of a new color of the spectrum. Man can’t even think or fantasize about something that doesn’t exist in the physical world.
Of course, with the help of a little alcohol, a person could have visions of pink elephants, but pink exists and so do elephants. So the fact that God is even in the thought of man is evidence that He exists.
And again, how would you explain the fact of the universality of religious belief? Different cultures and civilizations differ on the name, nature and number of God, but all accept that He or they exist. There is no known culture or civilization on earth or in history that has not had SOME kind of religion. Additionally, belief in an eternal existence of some kind after this life is also nearly universal.
The universal belief argument says there is no logical explanation for these facts except that God does exist.
Note [HAVE PARTICIPANTS READ AND DISCUSS]:
• Romans 1:19-20 – “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”
• John 1:9 – “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
• Ecclesiastes 3:11 – “He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world [lit. “eternity”] in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.”
2) [SHOW NEXT SLIDE] THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
This comes from the Greek word anthropos which means “man,” and has to do with the origin of that which is uniquely human. The anthropological argument says: The fact that mankind has a conscience and a moral nature, as well as intellect, culture and a sense of aesthetics demands a God as the source for those attributes.
There is simply no other satisfactory explanation for these things. Evolutionists see the dilemma and have come up with all kinds of explanations, some are creative, to say the least, and some are simply laughable.
You simply cannot come up with a sensible reason why man would have evolved these characteristics that are totally unique from the animal kingdom and separate man from them absolutely and irrevocably.
Let’s break these three different components down—mankind’s conscience, intellect and culture:
a) First, mankind has a CONSCIENCE and a MORAL NATURE.
Every society has a system of codes and rules and guidelines for moral behavior. Even isolated “savages” living deep in the jungle who appear to be very simple, in fact have very complicated and elaborate systems of moral codes.
Everywhere humans exist, they have a sense of right and wrong and a sense of duty. Even people who style themselves as atheists and agnostics speak in moral terms. Their morality may be perverted and twisted on its ear, but for some reason, mankind simply cannot exist without the concept that there are things that are inherently right and wrong. Even the most anti-God apologists in society will agree that mass murder and rape are wrong. Even the most consistent atheist, if you ask him if the molestation, slow torture and murder of a little child is wrong, will finally agree with you that it is wrong.
Well, if these things are wrong—who said they are wrong? You see, humans have a conscience that they just cannot rid himself of. It may be weak, good, defiled, seared, strong or pure, but it is never absent. The only adequate explanation for mankind’s conscience and universal need for moral codes is that the great Moral Being who created us all planted this moral sense in us. No other explanation is adequate.
Look with me at a couple of very informative verses of Scripture:
Acts 17:29 – “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.”
Paul said that because we are the offspring of God, we are different. Now think through Paul’s logic: If idols exist, it’s because they had to have an intelligent creator, right (that is, a human creator)? That’s what he’s saying in the second part of the verse. Something less complex and intricate must of necessity have been created by something greater than itself.
Doesn’t that make sense to you? A bird can create a nest, but a nest cannot create a bird. By the same token, a man can make an idol, but an idol cannot make a man.
So here you and I are. Doesn’t that fact require a Creator greater than we are? Is it really conceivable that blind, inorganic forces that are less than life, produced this universe, and produced every animal and plant on earth and produced you and me and all the other human’s on earth? Logic shouts “NO!”
Now continue Paul’s logic. Not only does man create an idol, but he fashions it after his own image or an image in his mind. Is it not logical then that OUR creator created US in HIS image.
Let’s carry that one step further: We are beings with a conscience and a sense of morality. Does that not necessitate a moral creator? We are the way we are, and we act as if there are morals because we are, as Paul stated, the offspring of a moral God.
But the Scripture that is most clear on this is Romans 2:14-15 – “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.”
b) Second, not only do humans have a moral nature, they also have INTELLECT.
Animals have a mind and instincts, but they don’t have an intellect. A beaver can build a dam, but he won’t collect a library of books to fill it with. An animal thinks, but he doesn’t reason.
Not only does humanity have the capacity to know things, he also has an unquenchable quest for knowledge. He wants to know more and more and more. He wants to know how things work. He wants to take things apart. He wants to discover new things. He wants to study the stars, or discover a cure for cancer, or uncover the secrets of bygone days through history and archaeology.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out this distinctive difference from the animal kingdom.
But WHERE does this come from?
As Paul said in the verse we looked at earlier (Acts 17:29), “we are the offspring of God.”
[HAVE PARTICIPANTS LOOK UP AN READ.] Look also at Genesis 1:26-27 – “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
c) Finally, humans have an AESTHETIC NATURE.
Why does every society upon earth have “CULTURE”? Dogs don’t paint or enjoy Rembrandt paintings. Pigs don’t create or appreciate Michelangelo sculptures. Apes don’t create or marvel at Frank Lloyd Wright buildings or skyscrapers. Kangaroos don’t write or attend Shakespearean plays. Zebras don’t compose or attend concerts of Tchaikovsky symphonies. The realms of art and culture, and just the ability to appreciate and enjoy beauty and lovely things, are exclusively human.
Illus. – When we were missionaries in England, one time we took some friends to the Cotswolds—[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] a part of England with some of the most quintessential villages in England. We went to see Lower Slaughter and Bourton-on-the-Water, both of which have beautiful streams flowing through them, with lovely, lazy trees, and small, stately stone bridges to walk across. Lower Slaughter is one of those places that as soon as you step out of your car, you sense beauty and loveliness and you just FEEL this wonderful sense of peace and serenity.
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] As we made our way up to the old mill I walked as slowly as I could, just taking in the quaint beauty of the old Cotswold stone houses, listening to the flowing water in the stream, smelling the fragrant flowers in the gardens of each of the houses.
watching the ducks waddle around.
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] THE DUCKS—that’s what arrested my attention!
Suddenly it occurred to me that those ducks had lived there their whole lives and not once did one turn to the other and say, “Quack! Boy aren’t those flowers pretty? Quack! Have you ever seen such a beautiful little town? Quack! What a lovely little stone bridge.” No, all they had ever done was swim around looking for food, waddle up to tourists looking for food, and expel food out the other end onto the sidewalks for the tourists to step in!
Only humans have the amazing capacity to create beautiful and lovely things and the desire to enjoy and surround themselves with such things? Why? Atheists have no real answers.
Q. How is man’s aesthetic nature evidence of God?
A. If you believe in a God who loves beauty Himself, who created mankind in His own image, then it’s no mystery at all.
4) [SHOW NEXT SLIDE] The Cosmological Argument
Kosmos is the Greek word for “world,” so this argument has to do with the origin of the world and the universe. The cosmological argument states that every effect must have a cause. Everywhere we look around us, we’re faced with one giant, undeniable effect—this earth and this universe. Obviously, this EFFECT must have had a CAUSE—some THING or some PERSON caused it.
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] There are only four logical explanations for the origin of life and the universe:
• It is not REALLY here—it is an illusion.
• It has always been here.
• It came from nothing accidentally (evolution).
• It came from nothing supernaturally.
Let’s examine all four of these alternatives one at a time:
a) Q. What’s wrong with argument #1 – That the universe is not REALLY here—it is an illusion.
A. To say it is not really here and that it is an illusion has no validity because experience teaches otherwise.
Some people actually believe that we cannot prove that ANYTHING exists. They say, maybe all of reality is an illusion. Even the illusion is an illusion. Maybe there is no one having the illusion. For people like this, arguing for God’s existence is an exercise in futility. But that’s all right because such people don’t even exist if nothing exists. Our arguments are addressed to people who do exist. So we’ll skip the people who don’t exist and address the rest of our comments to those who do! (From Sproul)
b) Q. What’s wrong with argument #2 – The universe has always been here.
To hold the second alternative, that the universe has always been here, is absurd on its face.
Is there anyone here wearing a watch?... Wouldn’t you say, “My watch has always been here. It was never created. It just has been here for all eternity.”? Well, that’s absurd, but for the sake of argument, let’s just suppose my watch HAD been here for eternity.
If it had, let me ask you a question: Would it still be ticking? Of course not. Why?—Because there is one law that ALL scientists in EVERY discipline agree without exception is occurring in nature: The Law of Entropy.
Q. Does anyone know what the Law of Entropy is?
A. The Law of Entropy says that the universe is running down, that it is deteriorating, that it is tending towards collapse, disorder and decay.
This is seen in the universe on the large scale, but also in the small scale as well. For instance: Your sofa doesn’t get nicer and in better condition the older it gets. The fabric fades. The foam settles. The screws will come loose if you keep it long enough. Eventually, the wood would rot, as would the fabric, the foam and even the screws given enough time.
Washing machines don’t run better and more efficiently the longer you use them. The belts break. The electrical system shorts out. It starts breaking down until you have to junk it and buy a new one.
EVERYTHING tends toward disorganization and deterioration, not vice versa. This is true of the universe as well. Scientists well know that the rotation of the earth is slowing down. Why?—The Law of Entropy. If the universe had existed forever in the past, it certainly wouldn’t be in existence NOW because it would have collapsed and disintegrated a million eternities ago.
So that eliminates the second alternative, that the universe has always existed.
c) The third alternative, to say the universe came from nothing accidentally, also cannot be true.
This theory is a contradiction in terms. They say that at one time NOTHING existed. Then one day, nothing exploded and became something!
Did you get that? Let me repeat that: At one time NOTHING existed. Then one day, NOTHING EXPLODED and BECAME SOMETHING!
Folks, I’m not making this up! People really believe this! It’s called the Big Bang Theory and is said to be the explanation for the universe—and that’s before you even get to the question of how life began from non-life, a task so monumentally unlikely that statistically it is impossible—and THEN you have to deal with how this basic, simple one-celled life form miraculously developed into all this massive, incredible diversity and complexity of life systems we see in the world today. That people could actually believe things that according the normal laws of science are preposterous, and then devote their lives to trying to prove them reveals the lengths to which man will go to flee from God!
Well, let’s save the origin of life and the evolution of complex life on earth for another day. For today, let’s just deal with the Big Bang Theory.
There are two Big Problems with the Big Bang Theory:
• First of all, the idea that there was once nothing and then NOTHING EXPLODED in a big bang and became SOMETHING requires more faith than it takes to believe than an intelligent God created it all.
Guys, 0 times 0 equals what?—ZERO! If nothing existed in time past, how could nothing explode? Explosions occur when SOMEthing interacts with SOMEthing to produce an explosion. If nothing existed, what was the other nothing that interacted with nothing to produce something?
This is a logical nightmare. It simply does not make sense! And yet, this is the reigning idea among scientists today as to the explanation for the origin of the universe. Big Bang tall-tale story tellers, who see themselves as the vanguards of science and reason, like to talk patronizingly about us as “people of faith.” “My, my, you poor people who have to have faith as a crutch.”
Guys, it takes more faith to believe that everything came from nothing and that it came about through blind chance than it does to believe that it all came about by the hand of an all-wise and all-powerful God. THEY are the ones with extraordinary faith, or you might more accurately say that they have faith in fantasy. There’s a verse to describe people who see the obvious and refuse to believe it because it doesn’t fit what they want to believe – 2 Timothy 3:7 – “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
• The second problem with the Big Bang Theory is the preposterousness of the idea that a huge infernal explosion created a universe of such order and design and clockwork exactitude.
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] There is another scientific law that has been demonstrated by every experiment of its kind that has ever been conducted. That is this simple fact: “Explosions produce chaos, not order.” (EXPAND)
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] Illus. – Noting that there are 10 to the power of 80 sub atomic particles (1080 or 10 followed by 80 zeros) in the known universe, Donald Page, U.S. cosmologist, calculated the odds of the wonder of our ordered universe coming from a chance explosion as 1 x [SHOW NEXT SLIDE] 10,000,000,000124. i.e., a number so infinitesimally huge as to be impossible in practical. This number is astronomically inconceivable. No mathematician would call this chance. The Big Bang is a fairy tale for grown-ups. Under the scrutiny of common sense, it fizzles into a disappointing firecracker, not a Big Bang.
d) Our fourth and final alternative, that everything was created by some intelligent Being, is the only truly logical explanation.
If you came upon a CAR IN THE FOREST, you don’t assume that it just happened without a cause, or that it just evolved, or that an explosion occurred in a volcano and produced this intricately detailed vehicle by pure chance. – Logic tells you it had an intelligent maker. Likewise, if you observe a PAINTING, you naturally assume there was a painter. If you see a BUILDING, you assume there was a BUILDER. And if you see a UNIVERSE with intricate laws of exacting mathematical order and design, does not logic demand that it had a Designer?
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] I like Ray Comfort’s little tract titled, The Atheist Test:
The fifth test question in the test goes like this: “The man who sees a building and doesn’t know if there were a builder is:
1. Intelligent
2. A fool
3. Has an ulterior motive.
Now let’s carry that a little further [SHOW NEXT SLIDE:] “The man who sees a UNIVERSE and doesn’t know if there were a creator…
1. Is intelligent
2. Is a fool
3. Has an ulterior motive.”
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] In his “X-Files Lectures,” Michael Penfold said, “Some people cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman. If God exists we are accountable to Him!”
J.O. Smith says:
“I pick up a watch and examine its works and I know at once that it did not fall from the skies, neither did it grow by the roadside. Ordinary reason tells me that it had a maker, that someone designed it, that only an intelligent being could have invented it.
I see an automobile. I have never known one to be born. It didn't just happen. A glance tells me that it was built for a special purpose, and immediately I think of a first cause and conclude that it must have been fashioned by an intelligent being. And who would have the audacity to dispute me.
I look at a house and I know it had a builder. An effect always presupposes a cause.
Robinson Crusoe finds the print of a man's foot on the sand. He does not waste time trying to invent some new theory. He comes immediately to the irrefutable conclusion that it was made by a man, and that a man must have been on the island.
I see planets, suns, great heavenly bodies, and all moving in perfect order, each in its own prescribed circle. They never clash and they are right on time. I see plants, trees, flowers, animals, birds, fish, men, and instinctively I look for a Creator, a Designer, a Master mind. Some all-powerful, intelligent Being I know must have designed and created all of them. Hence there simply must be a God.” (Source lost.)
Why does not the atheist want God? He wants a watchmaker for a watch, an automobile manufacturer or inventor for a car, an architect and builder for a house. Why not a Creator for a universe? There can be but one answer. He is not right with God and he does not want to meet Him.
Note Hebrews 3:4 – “For every house is built by some man; but he that built all things is God.”
The first phrase is simple HUMAN LOGIC – “For every house is built by some man…”
The second phrase is God’s GOD’S REVELATION – “…he that built all things is God.”
Logic tells us SOMEONE created this universe. Revelation tells us WHO that Someone was.
5) [SHOW NEXT SLIDE] The Teleological Argument
Telios is the Greek word for “perfect, completed or fully developed.” This argument concerns the purpose and design that we see in the world—that seems to be built into the very fabric of the universe. In other words, we are not only confronted with A WORLD (the previous—cosmological—argument), [SHOW NEXT SLIDE] but this world is fully formed and seems to have a purpose and design behind it, making it ideal for the existence and maintenance of life.
So we could say that the universe and earth all seem to have been designed—and a design by definition demands a designer. This is even admitted by one of the most influential evolutionary apologists in our day, Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker when he said,
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
How do you account for the apparent design of the universe? Non-theists like Dawkins answer that this fully developed, seemingly designed universe came into existence by chance and/or through the processes of natural selection (which are also by chance). It only has the APPEARANCE of having been designed for a purpose.
But the question remains: Can random, “by chance” actions result in the highly integrated organization which is evident in the world about us? To believe that it does REQUIRES A GREAT MORE DEAL FAITH than to simply believe that GOD created it. The Christian answer also involves faith, but it is not less believable.
Illus. – Let me illustrate this for you: Suppose you and I were walking on the beach, and you found a watch with a leather band half covered by sand. You reach down and pick it up. While you’re examining it, I turn to you and say, “This watch got here by a long process guided by pure, unguided chance, and here’s how it happened: Iron particles somehow were separated from rock and over millions of years these different particles of iron somehow came to a boil and became little pieces of stainless steel. Then those pieces, through erosion, formed into tiny watch parts—round cogs, sprockets, a time-setting knob, a mainspring, an escape wheel and scores of other tiny parts—all of exact size, shape and proportion. At the same time all this was happening, nearby crystals of sand were heated to a high temperature and amazingly formed a chunk of glass, which over millions and millions of years eroded to a perfect round shape that, strangely enough, fit the watch face exactly. One day the wind blew the glass onto the watch with such force that it sealed itself to the front of the watch. Millions of years later, a cow happened to walk by and died of a heart attack right there on the spot. The leather from the hide of the dead cow began to come apart in the process of deterioration and two slender pieces formed what would be a perfect fit for a watch band if it could somehow attach itself to the watch. One day the wind blew little pieces of stainless steel, shaped like small rods and formed by chance over millions of years. The wind blew in such a way that the steel rods were incredibly able to needle their way through the leather pieces and—believe it or not—attach themselves to the watch, making the watch band usable to wear on a person’s hand. Later a bird came along and punched little holes in one of the leather straps. Then another, smaller rod, formed over millions and millions of years, attached itself to the end of the opposite strap, so that it would fit perfectly into the holes of the strap with holes in it. THAT” I say in conclusion, “is how this watch got here.”
If I concocted a cockamamie story like that, you could be forgiven for saying to me, “What have you been smoking?!” Yet we are expected to believe that all this universe came into being by mere chance. And this universe, like the watch,… works perfectly… it is exactly on time… and it works according to orderly, precise laws, with many different parts acting in conjunction and harmony with one another.
Not only are we expected to believe that the cosmos, with all of its simultaneous complexity and order, came into existence totally by chance, but we are also expected to believe that life, which demands almost perfect conditions and precise proportions of materials—just for the MAINTENANCE, not to mention ORIGINATION if life—and that life spontaneously came into being totally by chance, without any guiding hand from an intelligent being.
Years ago a man named Stanley Miller tried to discover if he could recreate the generation of life in a test tube. Through hundreds of precise and controlled experiments he was able to produce some basic amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, by applying an electrical charge to certain chemicals.
This was anything BUT blind chance, but his discovery nevertheless created quite a stir in the scientific community. The media went wild over it and announced that Miller had created life in a test tube.
Of course, the scientific community at large knew full well that he had done no such thing, as did Stanley Miller himself. Over the years the enthusiasm of the scientific community has cooled, though the public perception remains to this day that science has produced life in a test tube.
Miller himself recently concluded,
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] “To date, no highly efficient prebiotically plausible process for the polymerization of amino acids to form peptides, or of mixture of purine, pyrimidines, and ribose to form ribonucleotides, have been found.”
That’s scientific lingo to say that no means for creating life in a test tube have yet been found even after millions of guided experiments and attempts by scientists around the world. If SCIENTISTS can’t do it by guided intelligent design, how are we to believe that it came into existence by blind chance? Even if scientists someday finally ARE able to produce life from non-life in a test tube, it will only prove the creationists’ point—that it takes deliberate an intelligent designer to bring life into being, not blind chance.
According to Michael Behe, the author of Darwin’s Black Box:
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] “…despite 45 years of research we are no closer to discovering how protein or DNA or any other complicated biochemical polymer might be put together by undirected chemical reactions.”
Klaus Dose, a prominent worker in the field of origin-of-life research who has been in a desperate search for a scientific explanation for how life got here unaided by an intelligent designer, pulls no punches when he says,
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] “More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” (Dose, Klaus, (1988) “The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 13, p. 348.)
But brethren, the wild imagination of the scientific community has not reached its outer limit. Not only are we expected to believe that life came spontaneously into being from non-life, but that all of the millions of complex life forms we see in all their multifarious variation also came into existence totally by blind forces without any intelligent designer. If you seriously believe that, then you can understand why I may be tempted to ask you: “What have you been smoking?”
The clearly-seen design of this universe is one of the most convincing proofs of God’s existence. This world and universe are designed with a particular purpose in mind. There is a design, a plan, a focus to it.
Dr. Walter Bradley, a professor at Texas A&M University, writes the following:
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] “One of the remarkable discoveries of the past 30 years has been the recognition that small changes in any of the universal constants produce surprisingly dramatic changes in the universe, rendering it unsuitable for life, not just as we know it, but for life of any conceivable type. In excess of 100 examples have been documented in the technical literature and summarized in such books as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986).
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] “For example, if the strong force which binds together the nucleus of atoms were just five percent weaker, only hydrogen would be stable and we would have a universe with a periodic chart of one element, which is a universe incapable of providing the necessary molecular complexity to provide minimal life functions of processing energy, storing information, and replicating. [SHOW NEXT SLIDE]
“On the other hand, if the strong force were just two percent stronger, very massive nuclei would form, which are unsuitable for the chemistry of living systems. Furthermore, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, and no hydrogen containing compounds.”
It appears that everything in our solar system is designed and tailor-made especially and exactly and precisely to sustain life on earth.
Think about our sun for a moment: Scientists tell us that our massive earth fits into the volume of the sun 1 million times! Flames on the sun leap up thousands of miles at a time. But it is only a small sun of millions in the universe. The remarkable thing is that it has been placed 93,000,000 miles from us so that it’s just warm enough to maintain life. If it were a little closer, we would all die either from the heat or from drowning. In fact, if the polar ice were to melt and flood the earth, the sea level would rise to a point where it would submerge the Empire State Building up to the twentieth floor! If the sun were further away, however, we would all die by freezing. It is said that one second of energy given off by the sun is approximately 13 million times greater than the average amount of electricity used each year in the entire United States. There is no other solar system in the universe yet known in which its star is exactly positioned as the earth is from our sun so that the star’s distance creates a perfect environment for life. (Adapted from Ray Comfort in God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists).
Albert Einstein said:
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] “Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.
Illus. – Let’s look at a visual illustration of the difference between what the forces of blind chance can produce, and what forces of intelligent design can produce.
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] Suppose you were hiking in the American state of Utah and you came upon this stunning scene. [NOTE: THIS SLIDE SHOWS A PHOTO OF THE INCREDIBLE STRUCTURES IN BRYCE CANYON UTAH.] The forces of nature, such as wind and rain, can erode rocks and blow sand to form beautiful patterns, such as we see in this first picture, and no one would think you strange if you assumed that these magnificent natural structures assumed their particular shapes by blind chance.
But what if you were hiking in a different state, the state of South Dakota, and you came upon this?...
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] This is the famous landmark in America known as Mount Rushmore. If you saw the four faces of Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln carved on the granite cliff of Mount Rushmore, you would ask “Who did it?” and you would naturally and rightly conclude that there must have been an intelligence at work, changing the rock face into the images so famous on Mount Rushmore.
Blind chance could easily produce the geographical feature in the first picture, without a doubt. But who in his right mind would say that the forces of blind chance such as weathering and erosion produced the faces cut in Mount Rushmore?
Perhaps the greatest challenge to Darwinian theory in recent years is a book by biochemist Michael Behe titled Darwin’s Black Box. This is the most formidable of several books recently which have shaken some of the “givens” of modern scientific Darwinian theory. There are many streams of evidence that have deeply challenged evolutionary thought, but Behe’s book seems to be putting some nails in its coffin.
Behe examines the latest research in biochemistry and shows that evolutionary theory has no explanation for complete systems within life forms that exhibit what he calls “irreducible complexity.”
Q. Some of you have heard of Behe’s book and might know a little about it. Would someone like to take a stab at telling us what Behe means by irreducible complexity? [GET RESPONSED. THEN COVER THE MATERIAL BELOW.]
A. Irreducible complexity, in Behe’s own terms, refers to “a single system of a life form which is composed of several parts that contribute work together to perform a basic function where the removal of any one of the parts causes the entire system to effectively cease functioning.”
Now I know that sounds rather confusing and oh-so-scientific, so let me illustrate what I am talking about by using one of Behe’s illustrations, something we all understand.
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] An example of an irreducibly complex system is the HUMBLE MOUSETRAP.
The mousetraps that one might use to deal with unwelcome rodents consist of a number of parts.
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] Each of these parts are indispensable for the trap to work [POINT TO EACH APPROPRIATE PART ON THE MOUSE TRAP ON THE SLIDE]…
• a flat platform to act as a base
• a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the furry little critter
• a wire spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged
• a sensitive catch which releases when slight pressure is applied; and
• a metal bar which holds the hammer back when the trap is charged and connects to the catch.
assorted screws to hold the system together.
Now here’s the idea of irreducible complexity: If any one of the components of the mousetrap is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are ALL assembled. Take away any one part, and the mousetrap simply does not work, and the nefarious rodent scrambles happily away.
Now what does all this have to do with the existence of God? In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] “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.”
Darwin could not have known it then because biochemistry on the microscopic level was not possible in his lifetime, but as science has been able to get down and down and down into the inner workings of biological systems, they have fulfilled Darwin’s worst fears. To their surprise, biochemists have discovered a multitude of irreducibly complex systems which defy any evolutionary explanation and which, as Darwin said, “could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification.”
[ILLUSTRATE BY CONSTRUCTING VARIOUS SCENARIOS OF A MOUSE TRAP WITH PARTIAL OR NON-FUNCTIONING PART AND WHY THE LOSS OR BREAKDOWN OF ANY ONE OF THEM WOULD CAUSE THE WHOLE MOUSETRAP NOT TO WORK.]
Now let me give you a few biological examples of actual irreducible complexity from Behe’s book:
a) One of the most interesting ones to me is THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM.
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] That’s the little thing that appears to look like a tail that protrudes from a bacterium. We’ve all gotten pretty used to the sight of one of these things. But things got pretty interesting when in 1973 scientists discovered how the flagella works. It’s not a paddle-like tail that moves back and forth. To the amazement of scientists, that little tail-like protrusion was discovered to be a minute motorized machine that enables bacteria to swim and get around by acting as a ROTARY PROPELLER! And let me point out something here. The flagellum is not “like” a motor; it IS a motor.
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] Here is a picture of what it looks like: Now the things you see in this picture are on the molecular level and are made up of proteins. How it works is really rather complicated, so I won’t bore you with the details. But what they discovered can be summed up by saying that just like any mechanized propulsion system made by man, such as an outboard motor on a boat, the bacterial flagellum has the same mechanical elements as other rotary devices [SHOW NEXT SLIDE] (POINT TO APPROPRIATE PARTS ON THE SLIDE): a rotor (which is the rotating element of a mechanical rotary device), a stator (the stationary element), a rod or drive shaft, a propeller (the filament), bushings and a universal joint (called a hook).
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] Here’s a close-up of one of those parts on an actual flagellum under a microscope to show you that these are not just artist’s conceptions of these parts; you can see the actual part on a bacterium flagellum under a microscope.
Behe states concerning this remarkable discovery:
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] “The rotary nature of the bacterial flagellar motor was a startling, unexpected discovery…The requirements for a motor based on such a principle are quite complex and are the focus of active research.”
Further on he says:
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] “The bacterial flagellum…requires about [two-hundred and] forty [different]…proteins for function. [T]he exact roles of most of the proteins are not known, but they include signals to turn the motor on and off; “bushing” proteins to allow the flagellum to penetrate through the cell membrane and cell wall; proteins to assist in the assembly of the structure; and proteins to regulate the production of the proteins that make up the flagellum.”
The complexity of this little marvel called a flagellum is a powerful enough argument for the existence of a designer itself, but the real problem for the evolutionist is that it is irreducibly complex.
Illus. – Now suppose I had a boat on the back of which was an outboard motor with a propeller.…
If I took you out to my garage to see it and you saw the motor, the rotor, the stator, the shaft, a propeller, bushings and a universal joint, you would automatically assume it just “happened by chance”, right? No, you would ask, “What company designed this,” because such complexity working in precise harmony to perform a desired function is unquestionable evidence of a designer and a manufacturer. And if you take away any of its minute parts, it simply will not work! Likewise, a bacterium will simply float stiffly in the water without a means of locomotion and very soon die without this vastly complicated, obviously pre-designed and manufactured motor to propel it.
The scientific question is: How do you get an evolutionary precursor to the flagellum? (A precursor means a forerunner or prototype that the organism evolved from.)
NOTE:
• A precursor without the ROTOR, or one with a half-developed rotor, would not be able to survive to reproduce.
• A precursor with a non-functional, or less than fully functional STATOR would not allow the bacterium to propel itself, and would die.
• Take away any of it—the bushing, the hook, the filament—and the bacteria simply is not able to move about and dies.
If it evolved, all the individual parts must have appeared simultaneously as if by magic and work together perfectly from the very beginning. There is no known forerunner to the flagellum either in the present world, or in the fossil record. These bacteria just show up in the fossil record with these fully functional magnificent complex motors that help them to move around, and the scientific literature is at a loss to explain how such mechanical marvels simply exploded into existence without a slow, gradual development of precursor systems.
There are no bacterial with half-developed flagella. There are bacteria that do NOT have a flagellum and move around by other means (because they perform different functions), but no intermediaries. Evolutionists are stymied to explain this.
Those of us who believer in a divine Creator of the Universe, however, aren’t sitting around scratching our heads trying to figure this one out. This all makes sense to us. A fully-functioning, intelligent, purposeful design is what one would expect from an intelligent Designer.
• Another example of biological irreducible complexity is the BLOOD CLOTTING SYSTEM of our bodies.
OBJECT LESSON (Supplies needed: 1) a large 1-gallon Zip Lock bag filled about 3/4 full of water; 2) a pair of scissors; 3) a bucket for water to pour into.)
What happens if I do this: [MAKE A VERY SMALL CUT IN THE ZIP LOCK BAG FILLED WITH WATER AND LET THE WATER SEEP OUT. BE SURE TO KEEP IT OVER THE BUCKET OR YOU’LL HAVE A MESS!]
CONCLUION: Fill any ordinary container with a liquid and puncture it, and immediately the liquid will flow out unimpeded until all the liquid has emptied.
This will happen with virtually any container filled with liquid. But it DOESN’T happen with our bodies. When we have a minor cut, initially the blood flows freely, as with the Zip-Lock bag in the demonstration I just gave. However, within a few minutes, the bleeding mysteriously stops.
We take for granted the process known as blood clotting. However, it is one of the most complex and amazing processes known to science.
The magnitude of the complexity of blood clotting is illustrated by a cartoon that I want to show you in a moment. Years ago a fellow by the name of Rube Goldberg was popular for his whimsical pictures of machines that, if they could work, would be absolutely amazing, but you always wondered WHY one would want it to work in the first place. Here is one of them [SHOW NEXT SLIDE] (SHOW AND READ “RUBE GOLDBERG’S MOSQUITO BITE SCRATCHER” ON THE SLIDE.]
Now I know some of you are wondering, “Chuck, where in the world are you going with this one?” so hang on, because there IS a point. In Rube Goldberg’s mosquito bite scratcher there is a very precise sequence of events that MUST occur EXACTLY according to certain precise conditions in order to work.
When you think about it for a moment, Rube Goldberg’s mosquito scratcher is irreducibly complex. One minor change, and the whole thing fails to work, and our poor chap is left to scratch his mosquito bite in the traditional, old-fashioned way—by reaching back and scratching it with his hand. But unlike the examples of irreducible complexity discussed previously—the mousetrap and the bacterial flagellum—the mosquito scratcher is not a single piece where the components simultaneously exert force against each other. Rather, it is composed of SEPARATE pieces EACH ACTING IN TURN, one after the other, to accomplish its function.
This is exactly what happens when blood clots. There is a chain of events that occurs whenever you cut yourself that is nothing short of miraculous.
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] This is what a clot actually looks like under the microscope.
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] The “netting” created by a blood clot is constructed in a matter of minutes.
This itself is very remarkable and hard for evolutionists to explain how it could have evolved over time. But the worst is yet to come. The body has to be constructed so that it does not normally clot. That is, blood has to be able to flow freely to allow the nourishment and cleansing to reach all the tissues of our bodies. Then when a puncture occurs, there must be a switching mechanism to TURN ON the process of clotting, or else we would bleed to death. However, once the proper amount of clotting has occurred and the flow of blood is stopped, the clotting must then be SWITCHED OFF, or all our blood would congeal and clot the whole blood supply, cutting off the free flow of life-giving blood to our tissues, leading to death very quickly.
The process by which the blood “knows,” if you will, to turn on and off the clotting mechanism is an incredibly complicated series of chemical reactions. It is so complicated that, try as I might, it is impossible for me to explain with my limited knowledge of biology. It takes 7 pages of dense scientific jargon to explain in Behe’s book. If I read it to you, most of us would be asleep in five minutes.
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] However, the following chart illustrates what is known as the “Blood Coagulation Cascade.”
If you are interested in understanding exactly how this occurs, I would recommend you get Behe’s book and read it for yourself.
Now what is the significance of all this? Science is at a loss to explain how this incredibly complicated chemical cascade came into existence by chance. Blood clotting is both irreducibly complex and requires a Rube Goldberg-like sequence of events to occur exactly in a precise order. Then it has to reverse the sequence in an exact order to stop the clotting. Leave one thing out, and it simply WON’T—in fact it CAN’T— work.
All animals either have blood or don’t. All animals that have blood have this process known as clotting and there are no non-clotting animals with blood that are half-developed, or intermediate.
This is also true in the fossil record. All animals in the fossil record that had blood evidence fully functioning blood circulatory systems with blood-clotting functions.
Any precursor system, even if it DID exist would have half-functioning blood clotting systems and could not have survived because the blood clotting system is irreducibly complex. It would have bled to death before it could have evolved a fully functioning blood clotting system. This is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution.
• A final example of irreducible complexity we would like to examine is THE CELL ITSELF.
Evolutionary theory goes something like this: Billions and billions of years ago, certain conditions occurred that caused proteins to form the basic building blocks called amino acids and then to interact in such a way that they formed the first simple cell. This simple cell evolved over time into all the complex forms of life that we see around us today.
This all sounded well and good in Darwin’s day because at that time the microscope was at a very rudimentary stage of development. When scientists looked into their little black microscopes in the 19th century, they saw cells that seem to be—well “simple.” The great German zoologist Ernst Haeckel of the late 19th century called the cell a “simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon.”
And they did seem “simple” in the 19th century. However, things got a little messy as microscopes began to evolve! In the 20th century, scientists perfected a much more powerful type of microscope called the ELECTRON MICROSCOPE. Once they looked at cells with these powerful instruments, they were astounded! They found out that there is no such thing a “simple cell.”
[SHOW NEXT SLIDE] Well, let’s take a look at a “simple cell.” [GO OVER THE FUNCTION OF EACH PART OF A CELL, EMPHASIZING THE COMPLEXITY OF EACH ONE.]
The cell itself is irreducibly complex. That is, all of its constituent structures must be in place and fully functional for the call to live and reproduce. But not only that, each one of these structures themselves within the cell is a separate irreducibly complex system relying on lesser irreducibly complex systems to function.
Well, you might surmise, maybe all modern day cells are actually “advanced cells.” Might there have been simple cells billions and billions of years ago? Well, no.
There are two problems with this idea:
---First, you still have to get around the problem of irreducible complexity in the cells TODAY. Each of these structures in the cell are necessary and are made up of complex parts and perform sophisticated, complicated functions that are indispensable for the proper functioning of the cell. For instance, any cells with a partially functioning, half-developed mitochondria in the process of evolving, would have died and could not have reproduced itself. These structures had to come into existence in full functioning order or the cell could not function and survive.
---The second problem is the fossil record—evolution’s biggest headache.
Cells are also recorded in the fossil record. And guess what—they are just like cells today.
Look, there ARE NO “simple” cells. Simple cells simply don’t exist! (Pardon the pun.) Never did. All cells—past, present and future are complex examples of irreducible complexity. That means they have to be fully intact and all parts fully functioning from day one. That demands a DESIGNER who had a blueprint and followed it to a tee. That designer is God.
If I had the time I would tell you about many other irreducibly complex systems:
• We would talk about CILIA, the minute hair like structures on the surface of some cells that cause currents in the surrounding fluid or provide propulsion…
• We would discuss THE HUMAN EYE, which Darwin himself in his own day confessed that its emergence by tiny evolutionary steps was difficult to explain, and almost 150 years later, science is still stumped on that one.…
• We would deal with DNA, which if you take all the information in the DNA of a single cell of the human body, it contains as much information as the Encyclopedia Britannica—all thirty volumes of it—three or four times over—just in ONE cell alone.…
• The PLASMA MEMBRANE that encloses every cell, once thought simple, but now known to be both complex and irreducibly complex…
And on and on I could go.
No wonder Sir Fred Hoyle, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, a mathematician, concluded that the probability that higher life forms might have evolved by time and chance is comparable to “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”
Note Hebrews 3:4 – “For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.”
The existence of a house implies a designer—a builder. The world and life around show design written all over it. We can be sure that “he that built all things is God.”
Next week we will begin Part 2 of our study on Theology titled, “The Nature and Attributes of God.”
