The more science tells us about ourselves and the universe, the more it becomes obvious, at least to me, that we could not possibly be here by chance. Some unimaginably powerful, intelligent being seems to have created and designed us and the world. The label most use to describe the creator of everything is God.

The reigning paradigm in the scientific community dismisses this assertion as nonsense. If a young scientist wants to get her papers published; if she wants acceptance by her peers as a front-rank scholar; if she wants tenure, then she is well advised to develop findings that support the core elements of the dominant orthodoxy:

  1. Darwinism
  2. Emergence of the universe and us by random, purely physical events.
  3. Atheism.

These pillars of orthodoxy rest on the foundation of materialism, the doctrine that the physical is all there is. Most scientists believe that if they probe deeply enough, they will eventually demonstrate the truth of this proposition beyond dispute. The problem, however, is that advances in knowledge point in precisely the opposite direction – toward the existence of a creator, designer, and sustainer.

In the articles that follow, I want to give you an overview of the scientific evidence and logic for the proposition that the correct view of reality rests with the theists. In his Seven Days That Divide The World John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford, fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, sums up the theistic view as follows:

  1. “God causes the universe to come into being.
  2. God sets the laws of physics and the fine-tuned initial conditions.
  3. God sustains the universe in being.
  4. The universe develops and life subsequently emerges without any more discrete supernatural input from God until God creates human beings.
  5. At a particular moment, God specifically conferred his image on a hominid that had already emerged from the gradual evolutionary process” [p.163].

The question I want to explore is which hypothesis, materialism or theism, best fits the evidence so far. All I ask is that you keep an open mind. You may respond, “Isn’t this what scientists are supposed to do – follow the evidence? Yes, it is, but in too many instances, they don’t. Not only do they have to contend with institutional pressures such as getting grant money and tenure, but also if the evidence were to show that the core assumptions of their life’s work are flawed or even flat wrong, an admission of error would take more courage than most people can muster. Better to use one’s massive intellect to defend than to concede.

Nonetheless, sooner or later the superior description of reality wins. Whether the theist view strikes you as superior is up to you to decide. The following forthcoming articles explain why I think the reigning materialist view is mainly nonsense:

  • Darwin Deconstructed. Neither evidence nor logic supports more than a limited version of the hypothesis, namely that natural selection induces modifications of organisms to their environment,
  • Fine tuning: What Are the Odds? The chances that the conditions that make human life possible are so incomprehensively low that they could not have evolved by chance. The evidence is conclusive on this point.
  • Atheism’s Refusal to Face the Evidence. the most obvious and logical interpretation of the empirical evidence is that there had to be a creator and designer of the world we observe.


Share This