Currently, there are two hypothesis regarded as supportable regarding where life came from.
Biologist Jonathan Wells stated “Like all other scientific theories, Darwinian evolution must be continually compared with the evidence. If it does not fit the evidence, it must be reevaluated or abandoned-otherwise it’s not science but rather a myth.”
If you chose to embrace Darwinism, you claim the following:
-Nothing produces everything
-Non-life produces life
-Randomness produces fine-tuning
-Chaos produces information
-Unconciousness produces conciousness
-Non-reason produces reason
From this alone, pure logic states that you need to take a blind leap of faith. The central pilars of evolutionary theory will quickly rot away when exposed to scrutiny.
For example: naturalistic processes have utterly faild to explain how non living chemicals could somehow self assemple into the first living cell. Biochemist Klaus Dose states: “At the present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either in in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.
The fossil record has stubbornly refused to to confirm the grand claims of Darwinian Transitions. Despite inumerable discoveries since Darwin’s day, “the intermediates have remained as elusive as ever.” Rather than harmonize into a consistant case for Darwin’s theory, the fossils are a discordant cacophany that cannot reasonably account for the monumental heaps Darwinism must make, for example, between fish and amphibian, or amphibian and reptiles.
The most glaring deficiency is the biological Big Bang, also known as the Cambrian Explosion. The majority- or according to some experts, all- of the world’s forty phyla, the highest category in the animal kingdom, virtually sprang forth with unique body plans more than 500 million years ago. The sudden appearence of these radically new life forms, devoid of prior transitions, has turned Darwin’s Tree of Life on it’s head.
Darwin predicted that in due time, new discoveries would explain away this quantam leap in biological complexity. In reality, they have only made matters worse. The excuse that transitory creatures were too soft or small to be fossilized withers under examination. Alternate theories like Stephen Jay Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium” dash themselves on the rocks of reason. Darwin’s own assesment is still more accurate than a century and a half later: the Cambrian Explosion is “inexplicable” under his hypothesis.
While there are deficiencies of Darwinism, I became convinced, however, that evolution is a confirmed fact- as long as it’s defined to micro-evolutionary variations we see in plants and animals. Undeniably, a considerable amount of change and diversification has taken place over time, however, there is simply insufficient evidence from which to draw the radical conclusion that large-scale, macro-evolutionary transitions have occured.
In short, the amount of faith needed to maintain belief in the most sweeping and controversial claims far excedded what is warrented by hard evidence of science. On top of that, naturalism has absolutely no credible explanation for how the universe cam into being in the first place. This failure of the naturalistic and Darwinist ideas opened the door to considering the other hypothesis- that both the universe and the life it contains are the product of an intelligent designer.
Evidence of Cosmology
Thanks to scientific discoveries of the last fifty years, the ancient kalam cosmological argument has taken on a powerful and persuasive new force. As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple yet elegant:
First, whatever begins to exist has a cause. Even renowned skeptic David Hume didn’t deny this first premise. In fact, atheist Quentin Smith’s contention that “we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing” seems intuitively absurd.
Second, the universe had a beginning. Based on the data, virtually all cosmologists now agree the universe began in the Big Bang at some specific point in the past. Craig stressed that even alternate theories for the origin of the universe require a beginning…
The conclusion then follows inexorably from the two premises: therefore,. (third).. the universe has a cause. Even once-agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow conceded the essential elements of Christianity and modern cosmology are the same: “The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.
Evidence of Physics
One of the most striking discoveries of modern science has been that the laws and constants of physics unexpectedly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life. For instance, said physicist-philosopher Robin Collins, gravity is fine tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion.
The cosmological constant, which represents the energy density of space, is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bulls-eye just a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on Earth. One expert said there are more than thirty physical or cosmological parameters that require precise calibration in order to produce a universe that can sustain life.
Collins demonstrated that chance cannot reasonably account for this “anthropic principle” and that the most-discussed alternative — that there are multiple universes-lacks any evidential support and ultimately collapses upon the realization that these other worlds would owe their existence to a highly designed process.
This evidence was so powerful that it was instrumental in Patrick Glynn abandoning his atheism. “Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis,” he said. “It is the simplest and most obvious solution to the anthropic puzzle.”
Evidence of Astronomy
Similar to the fine-tuning of physics, Earth’s position in the universe and its intricately choreographed geological and chemical processes work together with exquisite efficiency to create a safe place for humans to live.
For example, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and science philosopher Jay Wesley Richards said it would take a star with the highly unusual properties of our sun — the right mass, the right light, the right age, the right distance, the right orbit, the right galaxy, the right location — to nurture living organisms on a circling planet. Numerous factors make our solar system and our location in the universe just right for a habitable environment.
What’s more, the exceptional conditions that make life possible also happen to make our planet strangely well-suited for viewing and analyzing the universe and our environment. All of this suggests our planet may be rare, if not unique, and that the Creator wanted us to be able to explore the cosmos.
“If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence,” said Harvard-educated astrophysicist John A. O’Keefe of NASA. “It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”
Evidence of Biochemistry
Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Biochemist Michael Behe has demonstrated exactly that through his description of “irreducibly complex” molecular machines.
These complicated, microscopic contraptions, such as cilia and bacterial flagella, are extremely unlikely to have been built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes, because they had to be fully present in order to function. Other examples include the incredible system of transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood clotting.
More than just a devastating challenge to Darwinism, these amazing biological systems — which far exceed the capacity of human technology — point toward a transcendent Creator. “My conclusion,” said Behe, “can be summed up in a single word: design. I say that based on science. I believe that irreducibly complex systems are strong evidence of a purposeful, intentional design by an intelligent agent.”
Behe’s argument has proven impervious to challenges by skeptics. While obviously there will be future discoveries in biochemistry, Behe pointed out that they will not be able to negate the complexity that has already been discovered — and which is best explained by a Creator.
Evidence of Biological Information
The six-feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body’s one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made. Cambridge-educated Stephen Meyer demonstrated that no hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means.
On the contrary, he said that whenever we find a sequential arrangement that’s complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function, this kind of information is always the product of intelligence. “Books, computer codes, and DNA all have these two properties,” he said. “We know books and computer codes are designed by intelligence, and the presence of this type of information in DNA also implies an intelligent source.”
In addition, Meyer said the Cambrian explosion’s dazzling array of new life forms, which suddenly appeared fully formed in the fossil record, with no prior transitions, would have required the infusion of massive amounts of new biological information. “Information is the hallmark of mind,” said Meyer. “And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that’s far greater than our own — a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who’s amazingly creative.”
Evidence of Consciousness
Many scientists are concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain our experience of consciousness. Professor J. P. Moreland defined consciousness as our introspection, sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs, and free choices that make us alive and aware. The “soul” contains our consciousness and animates our body.
According to a researcher who showed that consciousness can continue after a person’s brain has stopped functioning, current scientific findings “would support the view that `mind,’ `consciousness,’ or the `soul’ is a separate entity from the brain.”
As Moreland said, “You can’t get something from nothing.” If the universe began with dead matter having no conscious, “how, then, do you get something totally different — consciousness, living, thinking, feeling, believing creatures — from materials that don’t have that?” But if everything started with the mind of God, he said, “we don’t have a problem with explaining the origin of our mind.”
Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse candidly conceded that “no one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer” to the consciousness issue. Nobel Prize-winning neurophysiologist John C. Eccies concluded from the evidence “that there is what we might call a supernatural origin of my unique self-conscious mind or my unique selfhood or soul.”
THE IDENTITY OF THE DESIGNER
As I reviewed the avalanche of information from my investigation, I found the evidence for an intelligent designer to be credible, cogent, and compelling…
But who or what is this master Designer?… As Craig explained… the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, beginningless, timeless, immaterial, personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power… The evidence of astronomy, showing that the Creator was incredibly precise in creating a livable habitat for the creatures he designed, logically implies that he has care and concern for them…
Not only do biochemistry and the existence of biological information affirm the Creator’s activity after the Big Bang, but they also show he’s incredibly creative. Evidence for consciousness, as Moreland said, helps establish that the Creator is rational, gives us a basis for understanding his omnipresence, and even suggests that life after death is credible…
…Ockham’s razor shaves away the multiple gods of polytheism, leaving us with a single Creator. In addition, the personal nature of the Creator argues against the impersonal divine force that’s at the center of some New Age religions.
In contrast, however, the portrait of the Creator that emerges from the scientific data is uncannily consistent with the description of the God whose identity is spelled out in the pages of the Bible.
* Creator? “In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.”
* Unique? “You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other.”
* Uncaused and timeless? “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”
* Immaterial? “God is spirit.”
* Personal? “I am God Almighty.”
* Freedom of will? “And God said, `Let there be light,’ and there was light.”
* Intelligent and rational? “How many are your works, 0 Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.”
* Enormously powerful? “The Lord is… great in power.”
* Creative? “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.”
* Caring? “The earth is full of his unfailing love.”
* Omnipresent? “The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you.”
* Has given humankind purpose? “For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible… every thing got started in him and finds its purpose in him.”
* Provides for life after death? “He will swallow up death forever.”
As the apostle Paul wrote two millennia ago: “For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, that is, his creation, so that men are without excuse.”…
…To me, the range, the variety, the depth, and the breathtaking persuasive power of the evidence from both science and history affirmed the credibility of Christianity to the degree that my doubts were simply washed away.
Unlike Darwinism, where my faith would have to swim upstream against the strong current of evidence flowing the other way, putting my trust in the God of the Bible was nothing less than the most rational and natural decision I could make. I was merely permitting the torrent of facts to carry me along to their most logical conclusion.”
This information was found in “The Case for a Creator”, which is book I recommend for any person wishing to know more on this subject.