Quick Thought – Posing A Challenge To Atheist

On one hand atheist such as Richard Dawkins agree that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” On the other hand atheist reject ID on the premise that there is insufficient evidence. Yet when you press the naturalist on the question of origins they concede the fact that even the most advanced evolutionary biologist in the world have no clue how life could have arisen by natural processes.

It’s interesting how so many prominent atheist thinkers agree that life appears designed, yet they all insist a designer is superfluous even though they have no clue how life could have arisen by natural processes. Are atheist guilty of blindly filling in the gaps with a natural unguided process? Is there an apparent prejudice within the scientific community that precludes God as a possibility? If life appears designed and there is no evidence to suggest it came about naturally, isn’t it logical to infer a designer?

The fact that naturalism is incapable of explaining our origins follows the basic predictions from the God-hypothesis. Sure atheist can argue that they’re “still working on it,” but couldn’t this argument be perpetuated indefinitely? At what point does the absence of evidence become the evidence of absence? How can God be considered superfluous when we have no substantiated alternative explanation, and all the while life appears to be purposefully designed? We are far beyond basic God of the gaps here; advances in molecular biology and the current data about the origins of the cosmos have some remarkable design engineering implications.

Unless there is evidence that can adequately explain away the appearance of design, I think it’s safe to assume that Intelligent Design is in inference to the best explanation.

Thoughts On Morality

The question is not whether believing in God is necessary for establishing some elementary moral foundation, it seems to be fairly obvious that an individual has the capacity for honest and forthright living apart from any credence to the transcendent. Yet for me a larger question still remains; that is, are we inherently moral beings because God made us in his image? I think often the public misconception is that Christians such as myself believe that in order to be morally inclined you need to have faith in God. While I do believe something can be said for the moral instability of an ideology that establishes it self without any recourse to a higher power, I don’t believe that religion, i.e. belief in God, is a prerequisite to being a fundamentally ‘good’ person.

Those who reject moral absolutes and adhere to moral relativism typically argue that morality is simply a measure of good posturing, that ethics can be explained by some social Darwinism, in which we cooperatively coexist for the mutual benefit of our species. This seems to be fairly plausible on some elementary levels. We often see this among’st various species in the animal kingdom, a group working together as one for the survival of all. Yet for all the observation of this peaceful Darwinian coexistence, there is the occasional barbarism. For example, in order to coerce the female to mate with them, male chimps and lions are known to kill their own infants (male chimps will even go as far as to cannibalize the baby chimps.)

In a land void of moral absolutes there is really no grounds for deterring the more dominant individuals from assuming their power over others. Just as there is no grounds to say that lions and chimps committing infanticide are wrong, from the evolutionary standpoint there is nothing inherently wicked about killing the infants. After all such minor atrocities really have nothing to do with the overall survival of the species. Thus while social Darwinism seemingly offers a congruent framework for the overall cooperation of a species, it does little to repress the internal selfish instincts that characterize our day to day lifestyle. This is merely to suggest that the atheistic paradigm is inadequate for establishing a solid moral infrastructure.

On a similar note what grounds would we have to criticize the Nazi regime for seeking to establish the dominant supremacy of a modern utopia? Hitlers implementation of eugenics was simply a matter of self consciously applying principles of Darwinian evolution. There’s nothing inherently wrong with obliterating weaker atomic particles in order to establish a seamless social structure. This is simply following suit with the struggle for supremacy and survival that follows from Darwinian logic. For it is precisely the logic of social Darwinism that brings us to such moral ambiguities. I find the reality that we are uniquely aware of such injustices seems to indicate an underlining and overriding moral consciousness.

Now I fully understand that people have rationalized evil in the name of Christianity; in a similar way many have also rationalized evil in the name of liberty. However, in no way does this diminish the integrity of either in their own respect. After all, it isn’t Christianity that should be judged off it’s followers, rather it’s followers ought to be judged off Christianity. You see, no religion or set of moral codes in of it self has the power to transform someone from the inside. In the scriptures the law was given to the Israelites as mirror in which their internal wickedness was to be accentuated, that they might realize their need for forgiveness; ultimately we are to understand the righteous requirement of the law surpasses our capacity for adhering to it. Alas, it is not a religion or a code of ethics we are in need of, but rather a savior! in this way Jesus came that we might pick up our crosses and follow after Him in faith.

We do have the capacity to be modestly “good” people apart from belief in God, just as we have the capacity to be modestly “good” people who believe in God. Either way, whether your an atheist or a law abiding theist, you can never be good enough. For the wages of sin is death, and because God is a righteous God he must punish all sin. Thus if you live by the measure of your own goodness, you will die by the measure of your own inadequacy. Only when we put our faith in God will we ever be able to fulfill the requirements of righteousness.

The late Christopher Hitchens use to pose a moral challenge to believers, he would say “name me a moral action committed by a believer that could not be made by a non-believer.” The fallacy of Mr. Hitchens argument is that it’s predicated on the assumption that Christianity is false, for in doing so he precludes the obvious answer, for clearly the saving of ones soul by the preaching of the Gospel is the greatest moral action that we can accomplish, one that can only be committed by a believer.

Creation Requires A Creator

How can anyone definitively say God exists? How could we ever claim to know such truth? Such mystical allusions are rife with arrogance, as if we mere mortal humans could ascend into the heavens and attain such privileged knowledge… These questions are not without due consideration, and I must say, providing a compelling systematic explanation for my faith has proven to be a tall order to fill. Often times my explanatory power gets muddled in the translation and I’m unable to provide anything palpable for my atheist friends to meditate on.

Thus I find myself in a peculiar position,  struggling to persuade those around me of that which I had taken for granted, that is creation requires a creator. I frequently find myself caught in the undertow of contemporary thought, locked in a twilight zone where men call things that are, as though they were not. In a world where positing an external creator is to replace science with magic! I feel as though I have awoken amid’st the chaos of an exotic circus grandeur, wherein faith is the grand illusion! for faith in God is to assert “Oogity Boogity caused everything by the mechanism of POOF!” as one blogger so eloquently attest. Perhaps I just never quite understood how something could pop out of nothing. The idea that space, time, and matter just spontaneously erupted from free-space defies not only the natural laws that govern our universe, but also reason it self. In this apparent anomaly that is our universe, we must admit, a higher power is a possibility worth considering.

Thus my belief in God rest on three basic assumptions: 1. God Himself is eternal, for we know that matter is not eternal but had a definite beginning. 2. that which has been created (matter) requires a creator. 3. That said creator has purposefully revealed himself to us in such a way that he can be discerned. Now in regards to this last point, I ask myself, looking back through the sands of time do I see any  indications of a creator attempting to reveal himself to us? Indeed, let us for a moment look plainly upon the scriptures. Comprised of arguably the most ancient texts in the world, we find a succession of congruent books purposefully documenting historical encounters with the “creator of heaven and earth.” Whats more, it is through these texts that we come across the extraordinary life of Jesus of Nazareth. A life having been foretold for centuries.

Isaiah 53: 5-6 “But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.”

Psalms 22: 16 “For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked have enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet”

And it is in the story of Christ that we see the only begotten Son of God descending unto humanity. The scriptures claim that faith comes by hearing the Word of God, and that Jesus himself was the Word made into flesh. It is precisely the life of Christ that I observe something fundamentally unique beyond any other historical record, a voice rising from utter obscurity, a voice that has endured throughout the ages. If we take the scriptures seriously we see that it offers us a very congruent framework in which God has revealed Himself to mankind.

But how can we know if Jesus was who He said He was? This brings us to a very fundamental question – what is our relationship with reality? Let us take gravity for example, we know gravity exists because we can observe and experience it laws in effect all around us, thus through our direct empirical contact we are made aware of its reality. It is through observing such uniform and repeated experiences that reality exists

Thus why should this methodology be any less viable in forming my reality of God? The scriptures assert that the law of the Spirit of life through Christ will produce within our members the fruits of the Spirit. That those who pick up their crosses and crucify the deeds of their flesh will be reborn a new creation, dissolved from the law of sin and the lusts of the flesh that govern our mortal bodies. Thus if the Spirit of God really dwells within us, and if Christ were true, then those who follow after Him ought to be able to observe and experience this new creation coming to fruition over time.

Galatians 5: 22-23 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control..”

The core narrative of the Bible is not that that man has ascended into spiritual enlightement and obtained this privileged knowledge of the one true God, but rather God that has descended unto earth and revealed Himself to us in such a way that we can be assured that He is who He says He is. If we look objectively at the mere fact that the teachings of Jesus persist as the most influential words to ever be spoken, we have good reason to believe that Jesus in His own right was extraordinarily unique.

Knowing what we do through recent advances in cosmology and physics, is it logical to presume the world could have arisen by purely natural processes? Today many scientist have attempted to postulate different theories on how ‘something’ could have emerged from ‘nothing’. Redefining nothing to be some sort of quantum vacuum in which particles appear from free-space. perhaps the words of Paul ring more true now than they ever did:

20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools” – Romans 1:20-22

Naturalism And The Proverbial Rabbit-Hole

Throughout this blog I have transcribed some of the growing concerns with regard to the efficacy of Darwinian evolution in explaining the diversity and biological complexity of living organisms. I have also spent a great deal of time addressing the perennial issue of origins, shedding light on the scientific communities rather tentative approach in postulating a coherent theory which would adequately explain the origins of the first information necessary to produce life; a phenomena which surely must have transpired at some point in our distant past.

My purpose in writing this post is to provide a comprehensive critique on the contemporary orthodox perspective that an unguided naturalistic process could account for the origins of life and the rise of new complex biological novelties, as well as the origins of the cosmos – not mentioning the anthropic fine-tuning necessary for sustaining it.

One of the first things that I began to write about was the inconsistency between the fossil record and the theory of evolution, or macro-evolution, that is the gradual transition from one species into a fundamentally new anatomical creature. Darwin himself conceded the fact that in order for his theory to be viable it would have to be a very slow and progressive process because only small genetic variations meet the test of heritability; larger mutations typically result in death and/or sterility.

Thus by it own logic the Darwinian theory predicts a specific pattern of evidence when observing the fossil record. More to the point, one would expect innumerable transitional fossils illustrating a slow harmonious evolution of evolving complexity over millions and millions of years. Yet what we find is a rather abrupt beginning of life forms already in advanced anatomical stages. We see fully developed kinds that more or less remain the same until they go extinct, nothing that would seem to indicate a gradual evolution over time.

It was Steven M. Stanley, the renown American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist who wrote “Species that were once thought to have turned into others, have now been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact the fossil record doesn’t convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” In contrast to this notion that the fossil record supports an evolving tree of evolutionary complexity, Stanley touches on the reality that such is the diversity of life that often lends it self to plausible intermediates. But surely buried some where deep in the rocky strata there must be compiled countless transitional fossils collectively documenting the morphological evolution of life – right?

Tiktaalik, the poster child of Darwinian evolution – transitional fossil? or plausible intermediate?

It wasn’t until the 1970’s that we began to see paleontologist such as Stanley reject the concept of gradualism. Strictly adhering to the empirical data, Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge were the first to introduce the theoretical concept of punctuated equilibria. In essence this was an attempt by paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, deeply ingrained in the philosophical concept of naturalism, to tailor an evolutionary theory to fit the lack of evidence for morphological trends in the fossil record.

“most families, orders, classes and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionary descendant taxa withe their presumed ancestors.” Niles Eldredge

“indeed the chief frustration of the fossil record is that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations” – Stephen J. Gould

Eldredge and Gould asserted that speciation is primarily restricted to rare and relatively rapid events (punctuation), outside of these episodic events species persist in a state of stasis, where they remain relatively unchanged (equilibrium).

“The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibrium has gained wide acceptance among paleontologist. It attempts to account for the following paradox: within continuous sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution.. The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma.” – Robert E. Ricklefs

The problem with the theoretical foundation of punctuated equilibrium is that its breaking alliance with one of evolution’s greatest allies – time! Thus while punctuated equilibrium seemingly bridges the gap in the fossil record, it raises some serious questions in the field of genetic populations.

In the arena of applied mathematics, natural selection acting on random mutations to produce new anatomical novelties is by no small measure a stretch of the imagination. The ratio of functional mutations to all the possible ways of arranging the genetic sequences in the DNA is astronomically small by anyone’s scientific standards. Thus when you begin to diminish the time-frame allotted for these transitions to take place, you seriously jeopardize an already infinitesimal likelihood of reaching your desired outcome.

Moreover, when we delve further into the mathematical plausibility of the mutational theory to account for the evolution of new ‘kinds’, we must also consider that in cases where we have land mammals evolving into fully aquatic creatures we need multiple coordinated mutations taking place in roughly the same time-span. For example, in order to get a successful transition from a Protocetus to a fully aquatic whale, we would need dramatic reorganization of the kidney tissue in order to take on salt water; we need hydrodynamic properties for the skin; forelimbs transformed into flippers; novel muscles for the blow hole; modified mammary glands to nurse its young underwater, etc,. etc,.

Predicated on the competition for survival, natural selection assumes that mutations provided for an edge in reproductive success among competing organisms. In order for evolution to be viable, every mutation must create a net benefit, otherwise natural selection will sift it out. Yet because mutations are random, the odds of getting multiple coordinated mutations necessary for sustaining a healthy marine vertebrate is mathematically inconceivable. In 2008 Durnin and Schmitt calculated the odds of simply getting two coordinated mutations for a complex adaptation like the one I just mentioned, and their conclusion was that you could get these two coordinated mutations once every 43.3 million years! – wheres the punctuation in that?

So are you willing to throw in the towel and slap a Jesus fish on your bumper yet? probably not.. and I agree while many of these anomalies don’t seem to have any specific scientific answer, they don’t necessarily beg the transcendental either. Invoking such explanations are more typically reserved for describing the emergence of life and the origins of the cosmos. 😉

In light of Sir Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the expanding universe we reach two very important questions that biologist and physicist have yet to answer. In relation to purely natural processes: (1) How did the universe begin? (2) How was the first information assembled?

Up until the 30’s most scientist believed that universe was eternal and that all life could be explained by a seamless natural process – human life, simpler life, chemical life, elementary particles from eternities past. Yet It was Albert Einstein’s field equations of general relativity and his new scheme for understanding the dimensions of ‘space-time’ that first postulated the theoretical concept of an expanding universe. Though it’s philosophical implications would initially lead Einstein to hypothesize a counteracting equation known as the cosmological constant, he would later refer to this illusory constant as the “greatest blunder” of his professional career.

Hubble’s usage of the great dome telescopes to document the data for the expanding universe has proved to be one of the most remarkable scientific discoveries ever. If the universe is continually expanding, then what happens when we begin to wind the clock backward? In 1969 Stephen Hawking solved Einsteins field equations and concluded that if if we go back far enough in time the curvature of ‘space-time’ would become so tight that it would become infinitely tight. For most scientist this was a very unpleasant reality, because for the first time there appeared to be considerable evidence in favor of the supernatural.

“This is an exceeding strange development unexpected by all but the theologians who have accepted the word of the Bible. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conqueror the highest peak, as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been siting there for centuries.” – Robert Jastrow

Further down the rabbit hole we begin to reach the origins of life, a mystery that often invokes the most exotic and mystical explanations that you will ever hear – typically rendering most naturalist content to avoid the question all together. However, there are a few things that we do know, we know that in order for proteins to assemble they need the information coded in the DNA. Much like the syntax in language or computer programming, the DNA is characterized by what is known as sequence specificity, meaning that the specific arrangement of its parts are necessary for it’s function as a whole. Apart from this specified information amino acids do not have the capacity to organize themselves into a meaningful biological sequence. Dean Kenyon, ex-chemical evolutionary theorist argues that “the enormous problem that is neglected is the origins of genetic information it self.. We have not the slightest chance of chemical evolutionary origin for the simplest cell.”

To this day chemical evolution persist as the most inconceivable conceptual theory in the scientific community. There are absolutely no known naturalistic processes that have ever demonstrated the ability to generate the information necessary for the first life. So how does the naturalist reconcile this dichotomy between materialism and origins? well they don’t.. atheism has simply become the default among pretentious intellectuals who assert that belief in God is puerile, and anyone who disagrees simply gets stigmatized and bullied into the outskirts of the “scientific” debate.

A fact of contemporary life is that there has been a serious decline of religious faith. Thus there is a hunger for a creation story that doesn’t involve any external or transcendental explanation. Evolution and other atheistic ideologies are adopted merely on the qualification that they comply with a party-line that says ‘you may embrace any methodology that doesn’t invoke intelligence.’ Yet it is our knowledge of cause and effect that tells us complexity and design always point to an acting agent.

Intelligent design is not objected to on the grounds of inconclusive evidence, physics clearly points us to a theistic “in the beginning” type of explanation; rather, Intelligent design is objected because of it’s philosophical implications. Just as predicted, the world is perpetually becoming a darker and darker place, seeking to expel God from every political, social, cultural, and scientific thought. Information and empirical data will never be enough to sway some people from the depths of their naturalistic paradigm, because for some it’s not about the evidence, it’s about a fist-clenching dogmatic denial of God’s existence.


The point that Lennox is trying to make can be illustrated in the following manner: Suppose thousands of years ago a group of primitive individuals came across a leather bound book filled with letters and symbols the likes of which they had never seen before. If the individuals were reductionist they would only try and explain the nature of the book in terms of the ink and paper.

Though the specific semantics of the symbols might not be deducible, we certainly do as rational and logical creatures have the capacity to recognize the product of other minds. Of course the symbols are abstract but we still have the capacity to infer intelligent causation. This can also be understood through logical syntax, where we recognize the ordered structure of things as meaningful, again this is part of being a rational and logical human being.

In fact the scriptures tell us that all of creation – the sun, moon and stars – are symbols with a semiotic dimension, they are a universal language that denote the existence of a creator.

Psalms 19: 1-4

“The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard.

Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world.”

As Christians we hold that there is a semiotic dimension to the world around us where we can reasonably infer intelligent design, in the same way that primitive individuals finding a leather bound book with mysterious and foreign symbols inside of it would.

A World Suffering From Evil


We live in a world plagued with suffering, a world where evil wanders to and fro, preying on the innocent and the weak, chaos howls like the wind, and death hangs ominous like stormy weather. How can a loving God tolerate so much injustice? How could such wickedness be permitted? In order to answer these questions we first need to understand why we were created. Were we put here merely to display the glory and power of God’s sovereignty? Or is there a deeper and more intimate purpose for why we are standing here today?

At the heart of every human being is the overwhelming desire to love and to be loved. Thus it is not sufficient that we love someone if the gesture is not reciprocated, in order for us to find fulfillment the affection must be mutual – that harmony between loving and being loved. The scripture tells us that we were made in the image and likeness of God himself; thus if our heart is merely to be a reflection of His heart, what then does this tell us about our created purpose? The Bible often uses the metaphor of God as a loving husband and the church as His bride. It has been depicted to us in manner which we can relate to; we can imagine those who are closest to us – whether a spouse, a child, or a good friend – just as we desire companionship in this way, so God desires it from us.

An honest and genuine relationship is deeply rooted in the ability to choose. True intimacy could never be coerced, just as you could never force someone to be your friend. Love suspended in complete and utter free-will is the mark of authenticity, no strings-attached. Because love is not a feeling that can be imposed, rather it’s an individuals personal decision. Sure God could have created a world of robots where everyone bowed down and worshiped him; but in order for our relationship to be meaningful and authentic it must hang in the balance of free-will. He has already chosen us, now we have to decide whether we’re going to choose Him.

There is no reason why we should have desired anything else other than to faithfully love God all the days of our lives. A relationship with God is the most satisfying existence that we could ever experience. But it was Satan, the father of lies who came in and seduced us that we should deny our first love and give ourselves over to sin. Thus the extent to which our love was real and authentic, so now is the extent of our evil and wickedness. There are no strings-attached to our evil just as there are no strings-attached to our love. There is no limit on the wickedness of man; at one end of the spectrum we have perfect unfailing love, and at the other end we have callous and cold-blooded murder. God created man with free-will knowing all the while that if we should choose to turn away, the ramifications would be without measure.

sad jesus

Genesis 6:5 “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and the Lord was sorry that He made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart

But the Lord did not distance Himself from our suffering, rather He became apart of it. Fredrick Nietzsche once said “The gods justified human life by living it themselves – the only satisfactory response to evil ever invented” Nietzsche was speaking of the Greek deities, he never drew the same connection to Jesus. The Lord is ever present and deeply concerned in the affairs of man, but He won’t step in and stop us from being wicked anymore than He we would ever force us to love Him. We know that God has the power to preserve the righteous and the power to destroy the wicked, the time is coming when the Lord will put all evil beneath him and cast it into the lake of fire, He has promised to come back and deliver His children from the wrath of the wicked, but He is waiting, delaying his return, for time is mercy that the lawless might come unto repentance.