Case is closed, review the evidence for yourself!!!

We will be concluding our series today about the Case for a Creator. Over the last few weeks we have been looking at evidences that point towards a creator. As follows is a summary of what we looked at:

Doubts about Darwinism
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 is not science, but myth. If you were to embrase  Darwinism and its underlying premise of naturalism, you would have to believe that:

·         Nothing produces everything
·         Non-life produces life
·         Randomness produces fine-tuning
·         Chaos produces information
·         Unconsciousness produces consciousness
·         Non-reason produces reason

To believe Darwinism you would have to take a huge leap of faith. Simply put, the central pillars of evolutionary theory quickly rotted away when exposed to scrutiny.

Where science meets faith
A big, fundamental question, like belief in God (or disbelief), is not settled by a single argument, its complicated for that. What one has to do is to consider lots of different issues and see whether or not the answers one gets add up to a total picture that makes sense.

The 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. For instance, Stephen Hawking’s use of “imaginary numbers” merely conceals the beginning point in his own model, which Hawking admits is not really a description of reality.

The conclusion then follows inexorably from the two premises: therefore, 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.

The 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,  physicist-philosopher Robin Collins says that 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 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.”

The 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.”

The 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.

The 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 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.”

The 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 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. Eccles 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 case have been made. All the evidence have been presented. If you were sitting on a jury, what would you choose? Considering all the evidence brought forward, will YOU conclude that there is a creator or not?
Find the truth and remember….. Have an intelligent faith!!!

-Nelis

taken from The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God