Origins - God or Chance?

© 2010 by Fulcrum Ministries (www.FulcrumMinistries.org) 1
DevelopingDeveloping
a Biblicala Biblical
WorldviewWorldview
Class 6Class 6
Origins: God or Chance?Origins: God or Chance?
ByBy
James C. Wright, J.D.James C. Wright, J.D.
jcw@FulcrumMinistries.orgjcw@FulcrumMinistries.org

The Scientific MethodThe Scientific Method
The scientific method is
based on inductive
reasoning (hypothesis,
experimentation,
observation,
reproducibility and
conclusion)
Follow the evidence!
It rejects deductive
reasoning from “a priori”
first principles and
assumptions Sir Francis BaconSir Francis Bacon

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

Scientific MaterialismScientific Materialism
 Scientific materialismScientific materialism
is not scientific!is not scientific!
 It rejects theIt rejects the
inductive scientificinductive scientific
method because itmethod because it
is a deductiveis a deductive
philosophy thatphilosophy that
defines reality baseddefines reality based
on unprovenon unproven a prioria priori
assumptions (assumptions (e.g.e.g., there is no God and all reality is, there is no God and all reality is
material).material).
 It does the very thing it falsely accuses Christians ofIt does the very thing it falsely accuses Christians of
doing –doing – a prioria priori deductive reasoning!deductive reasoning!

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

 In the quest to know God and his creation, weIn the quest to know God and his creation, we
need Scriptural as well as scientific humility.need Scriptural as well as scientific humility.
 We must discern between true science based onWe must discern between true science based on
the inductive method and scientific materialism,the inductive method and scientific materialism,
which is an anti-scientific philosophy.which is an anti-scientific philosophy.
 In humility, we need to be willing to re-evaluateIn humility, we need to be willing to re-evaluate
not only scientific dogma, but also theologicalnot only scientific dogma, but also theological
tradition on issues where Scripture is silent ortradition on issues where Scripture is silent or
ambiguous.ambiguous.
 Yet where Scripture – in context -- is clear andYet where Scripture – in context -- is clear and
unambiguous, we should take it literally and asunambiguous, we should take it literally and as
authoritative. Have confidence that true scienceauthoritative. Have confidence that true science
eventually will catch up.eventually will catch up.
Scripture and ScienceScripture and Science

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

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

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

© 2010 by Fulcrum Ministries (www.FulcrumMinistries.org)) 10
Occam’s RazorOccam’s Razor
Occam’s razor is a fundamental principle ofOccam’s razor is a fundamental principle of
science, which states that you should alwaysscience, which states that you should always
choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenonchoose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon
((i.e.i.e., the one that requires the fewest leaps of, the one that requires the fewest leaps of
logic).logic).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which conclusion, based on all the evidence, bestWhich conclusion, based on all the evidence, best
fits Occam’s razor?fits Occam’s razor?
(No One + Nothing) x Blind Chance = Everything(No One + Nothing) x Blind Chance = Everything
oror
Intelligent Design = EverythingIntelligent Design = Everything

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cambrian ExplosionThe Cambrian Explosion
 There is no evidence in theThere is no evidence in the
fossil record of any gradualfossil record of any gradual
change between basicchange between basic
morphologies.morphologies.
 The fossil record shows thatThe fossil record shows that
530 million years ago there530 million years ago there
was an explosion of life formswas an explosion of life forms
without any precursors.without any precursors.
 Nearly every animal and plantNearly every animal and plant
phylum suddenly appearedphylum suddenly appeared
without any evidence in thewithout any evidence in the
fossil record of any ancestors.fossil record of any ancestors.

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

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

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

Intelligent DesignIntelligent Design
After nearly 150After nearly 150
years, the bestyears, the best
evidenceevidence
demonstrates thatdemonstrates that
even the simplesteven the simplest
organisms possessorganisms possess
“irreducibly“irreducibly
complex” organs andcomplex” organs and
systems.systems.

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

Complexity in Simple OrganismsComplexity in Simple Organisms
 Example:Example:
FlagellumFlagellum
in protozoain protozoa
 RequireRequire
around 50around 50
proteinsproteins
 The absenceThe absence
of any one ofof any one of
the proteins renders the cell immobilethe proteins renders the cell immobile

So Where’s the Evidence?So Where’s the Evidence?
 When Behe went to theWhen Behe went to the
scientific literature, therescientific literature, there
waswas not a single studynot a single study eveneven
theorizing on howtheorizing on how
irreducibly complex organsirreducibly complex organs
and systems could evolveand systems could evolve
from “numerous,from “numerous,
successive, slightsuccessive, slight
modifications” or by anymodifications” or by any
other means.other means.
 Nor could he find anyNor could he find any
evidence for such evolutionevidence for such evolution
in the fossil record.in the fossil record.

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

At Minimum, Need a First CauseAt Minimum, Need a First Cause
 All organic life is built from proteins.All organic life is built from proteins.
 Without proteins, organic life is impossible.Without proteins, organic life is impossible.
 In the 1950s, scientists tried to duplicate theIn the 1950s, scientists tried to duplicate the
“primordial soup” from which they thought life“primordial soup” from which they thought life
emerged, but based on erroneous assumptions.emerged, but based on erroneous assumptions.
 The best evidence today indicates the odds ofThe best evidence today indicates the odds of
even a simple protein molecule being assembledeven a simple protein molecule being assembled
through chance alone, even in the presence ofthrough chance alone, even in the presence of
its constituent amino acids, is one in 10its constituent amino acids, is one in 104040
..
 To put that in perspective, the universe is only anTo put that in perspective, the universe is only an
estimated 10estimated 101818
seconds old (assuming 15 billionseconds old (assuming 15 billion
years).years).

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

God or Chance?God or Chance?
““I am not ashamed toI am not ashamed to
say that I believe insay that I believe in
the first chapter ofthe first chapter of
Genesis, but I shouldGenesis, but I should
be ashamed to saybe ashamed to say
that I believe in anythat I believe in any
form of evolution.”form of evolution.”
-- E.J. Young,-- E.J. Young, In theIn the
BeginningBeginning

Origins - God or Chance?

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (13)

Similar to Origins - God or Chance?

Similar to Origins - God or Chance? (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Origins - God or Chance?