God's Not Dead: Evidence for God in an Age of Uncertainty (12 page)

Atheists have recognized the clear implications of acknowledging that a universe had a beginning and that it was fine-tuned
for life. Therefore, they have attempted to rationalize this dire threat to their worldview by developing various theories, which deny both of these conclusions.

Dawkins also challenged the faith of physicist John Barrow, an Anglican. Like several other speakers, Barrow emphasized how extraordinarily “fine-tuned” the universe is for our existence. Why not just accept that fine-tuning as a fact of nature? Dawkins asked. Why do you want to explain it with God? “For the same reason you don’t want to,” Barrow responded drily. Everyone laughed except Dawkins, who protested, “That’s not an answer!”
³⁸

A
THEISTS
’ R
ESPONSE?
T
HE
M
ULTIVERSE

In order to dismiss the evidence for fine-tuning, a large number of atheists appeal to the concept of a multiverse. The multiverse is the hypothesis that our universe is one of a virtually infinite number of universes. Atheists argue that in such a multiverse it is mathematically possible, by chance alone, that one of the universes would exhibit all the just-right features for life, including humans. This idea shows how desperate many are to embrace any alternative to the overwhelming implications of the fine-tuned universe. The multiverse theory is not testable or observable; it must simply be assumed without any evidence of it.

As an example, Stephen Hawking attempts to ignore the universe’s beginning by appealing to the notion of imaginary time. He then appeals to
string theory
, which supposedly allows for the possibility of an infinite number of universes. Likewise, Krauss
asserts that cosmic inflation could generate an infinite progression of universes with different physical properties. However, neither of them has developed a testable theory, which makes clear testable predictions. As such, their claims reside more in the realm of
science fiction
, not science. Cosmologist Edward Harrison has made this deduction:

The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. . . .

Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument. . . .

Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished.
³⁹

Even if one granted the fantastic, unprovable hypothesis for the existence of numerous other universes with slightly varying laws, any mechanism that could produce the required universe-generating machine would itself need to be fine-tuned and therefore designed.
⁴⁰
Any attempt to create a theory of the universe from nothing inevitably leads to the reality of a universe
from nothing visible
(Hebrews 11:3).

M
IND
B
EFORE
M
ATTER

A simple way to think about all of this was presented by the legendary writer and philosopher C. S. Lewis. He would say that the
ultimate power behind the universe had to be mind and not matter. How could something like a rock communicate to humans what they ought to do?
⁴¹
Lennox told Dawkins at their Oxford discussion that the primary essence of the universe is a mind, not matter. Mind comes first, then matter—not mind emerging from matter.

Then the fact of the creator, remember the claim I’m making is, is perhaps even bigger than you realize. What I am claiming is this; there are two worldviews. There is your worldview which is as I understand it is an essentially a materialist or naturalist worldview. The universe is self-explanatory in terms of matter and energy and the laws of nature and so on. So that matter energy is essentially primary in the universe. And mind is a development, a development after a long process wherever. Whereas my claim is that it is the exact opposite way round. Mind is primary in the universe. God is the ultimate reality.
⁴²

As the gospel of John opens, “In the beginning was the Word.” The Greek word
logos
is translated here as “word,” but logos can also mean “reason” or “
logic
.” Therefore, before matter there was reason, logic, and intelligence. This is what the scientific evidence suggests. Robert Jastrow, formerly of NASA, was willing to follow the evidence, even if it led to God:

and under circumstances that seem to make it impossible—not just now, but ever—to find out what force or forces brought the world into being at that moment. Was it as the
Bible says, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine hands”? No scientist can answer that question.
⁴³

Lennox would boldly bring this truth into the discussion with Dawkins in their Oxford discussion. After he explained the two options of either matter or mind coming first, he made the logical case that mind must have preceded matter. But he did not stop there; he went on to show that we can know more about that mind.

Whereas my claim is that it is the exact opposite way round. Mind is primary in the universe. God is the ultimate reality. Everything else, including you and me is derivative, so that means that here’s the claim, let me set it out. In the beginning was the Word, the word was with God, the word was God. All things were made by him. So I’m claiming that whatever mechanisms that were used, that we can tease those out scientifically, and so that’s the fascination of science.
⁴⁴

Ultimately it’s the mind of God, the Word of God that is responsible for them.

S
UMMARY

The fact that the universe began is a recent realization in the disciplines of astrophysics and cosmology. In one moment, all space and time itself came into being. This notion of a beginning
of everything was resisted due to the fact that it pointed people toward a Creator. What’s more, the incredible fine-tuning of the fundamental laws of physics is evidence as well of a personal superintellect responsible for a universe that is life-permitting. The naturalist asserts that the universe came into being from nothing, by nothing, for nothing. The theist believes the universe came from nothing, by Something, for something.

Clearly the naturalistic theories of an infinite number of potential impersonal, mindless universes or an eternal set of equally impersonal, mindless
laws of physics
are not as reasonable as an eternal, uncreated, personal Creator. Therefore, when someone asks for evidence of the existence of God, you stand on solid ground by referencing the fact that the universe itself demonstrates the reality of our God.

5
LIFE IS NO ACCIDENT

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

—C
HARLES
D
ARWIN
,
O
N THE
O
RIGIN OF
S
PECIES
¹

The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it
is
an illusion.

—R
ICHARD
D
AWKINS
, “T
HE
I
LLUSION OF
D
ESIGN”
²

THERE IS A GOD: HOW THE WORLD’S MOST NOTORIOUS
Atheist Changed His Mind
was the title of a book published in 2004. The writer was Anthony Flew, the most outspoken atheist of his generation. While at Oxford in the 1940s, he presented a paper on atheism to the Socratic Club, chaired by C. S. Lewis. Flew was a prolific writer, publishing over thirty books. His conversion from atheism to theism at age eighty was a source of
tremendous controversy. Regardless of the debate over the extent of his “conversion” from atheism, the fact is that he did convert.

In a symposium in New York in May 2004, Flew was asked if his recent work on the origins of life pointed to intelligence behind creation. He declared that it did and retold the story in his book.

Yes, I now think it does . . . almost entirely because of the
DNA
investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. . . . It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.
³

Flew goes on to reveal that his conversion was a result of the commitment he had made to follow the evidence wherever it leads. “This statement represented a major change of course for me, but it was nevertheless consistent with the principle I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life—of following the argument no matter where it leads.”
⁴

Flew is not alone in recognizing the window into the world of the cell that has given us a glimpse of the fantastic complexity of life. Specifically, the developments over the last forty years in biochemistry and biology have shown us the micro universe of the cell and have led to the logical conclusion that life is no accident.

In the last
chapter
we looked at the incredible fine-tuning of
the universe from the very beginning of creation. The evidence shows that the universe was designed with life in mind. However, the actual emergence of life itself brings into focus equally fascinating fine-tuning evidence that points to the reality that life itself was intentionally engineered. When life walked onto the stage of history, it was no inconsequential thing.

DNA: T
HE
L
ANGUAGE OF
L
IFE

Let’s look at the very thing that changed Flew and is giving the objective mind overwhelming evidence for God . . . DNA.

Discovered in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is an instruction manual for operating any living thing. As Bill Gates said, “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
⁵
Watson and Crick may have discovered the book of life (DNA), but Francis Collins opened it up and taught us how to read it. Collins is a theist and a Christian, who mapped the human genome. He has been featured in
Time
magazine
⁶
and is a vital voice for the evidence in the magnificent order and information that makes up this indispensable component of life.

Bacteria have DNA. Yeast have DNA. So do porcupines, peaches, and people. It is the universal language of all things. We are in a truly historic era, when this language from many different species is being revealed for the first time. All of the DNA of an organism is called its
genome
, and the size of the genome is commonly expressed as the number of
base pairs
it contains. Think of the twisted helix
of DNA as a ladder. The rungs of the ladder consist of pairs of four chemicals, called bases, abbreviated
A
,
C
,
T
,
G
.
⁷

Our human genome stacks up as 3.1 billion rungs of the DNA ladder. Again, the probability it could have happened by chance is staggering. Have you ever received a pocket text? You get a few letters strung together that make no sense. It usually happens when people randomly touch their keypads without realizing they are hitting the keys. If you received a text that had an understandable message like, “Don’t tell anyone, but I won the lottery,” the chances the writer could claim the text was typed randomly would be astronomically improbable. Few would disagree with that straightforward conclusion. What if it was an ordered sentence of a billion letters? That’s a conservative comparison to the intelligent information in the human genome, our DNA. Chances of pocket texting that? The most accurate statement about us as humans is, we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

C
HANCE OR
D
ESIGN

Was life engineered by intelligence, or did it arise spontaneously from random processes? The answer to this question has a bearing on whether you are a theist or an atheist, if you are using
logic
to determine your beliefs.

For the last two thousand years, scientists and philosophers for the most part have agreed that life was designed. When Charles Darwin published
On the Origin of Species
in 1859, he sparked a revolution in how the scientific community would view this. “Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator
from rational discussion.”
⁸
Dawkins explained how this theory caused him to leave the Christian faith and embrace atheism: “At about fifteen I recognized that there was no good reason to believe in any kind of supernatural Creator. My last vestige of religious faith disappeared when I finally understood the Darwinian
explanation for life
.”
⁹

Einstein, on the other hand, who was fully aware of evolutionary
theory
, said the scientist’s “religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
¹⁰
Likewise, many other scientists over the past several decades are recognizing to greater degrees how design is revealed throughout science.

B
ACK IN
D
ARWIN
’
S
D
AY

Trying to go back to the nineteenth century and recapture the cultural mind-set that existed when Darwin’s work was first published isn’t difficult. It’s safe to say that Darwin threw the proverbial match into the powder keg. His ideas exploded onto the scene with the force of an earthquake and set off a subsequent firestorm much like the wildfires seen in the western part of the United States after a long period of drought.