Part Five:  Why Moral Law Requires That God Exists

 This argument rest on the fact that universal, absolute moral laws can’t exist independently of God. Hence, if absolute, universal moral laws exist, we have demonstrated God’s existence (the moral lawgiver). This can be expressed as a syllogism.

Premise 1: Universal, absolute moral laws exist.

Premise 2: It is impossible to have universal, absolute moral Laws unless God exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, God (the Moral Lawgiver) must exist.

In a valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The apologetic task is to demonstrate that these two premises are true, and it is fairly easy to confirm them.

Premise One:  Universal, absolute moral laws exist

To verify the first premise,  we must demonstrate that people worldwide share a fundamental generic moral code; that is, like-mindedness of what constitutes good and evil and right and wrong. The fact is all human beings do recognize certain acts as immoral and formulate laws and taboos to curtail such behavior.

Comparative studies in anthropology, sociology, and religion reveal the existence of an ethical standard governing the behavior of virtually all peoples, regardless of culture, religion, or periods of history. This generic moral code is manifested in worldwide prohibitions against indiscriminate murder, rape, stealing, lying, cheating, and other evil acts. It likewise acknowledges that love, sharing, selflessness, and protecting the weak and vulnerable are virtuous.

Understandably, these fundamental moral values may be modified as they adapt to distinct cultures. However, as philosopher and Christian apologist, Francis Beckwith pointed out, “it does not follow from different practices that people have different values.” (Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights 24) What’s important to understand is there are universal moral values that are objective, absolute, and obligatory. They are binding on everyone whether or not one wants to obey them.

Premise Two: It is impossible to have universal, absolute moral Laws unless God  exists

So, where did humanity’s corporate moral conscience—its sense of right and wrong—originate? It is highly improbable, and there’s no evidence that random evolutionary processes, operating within an amoral cosmos, could produce people with a moral conscience—let alone universal moral values. Indeed, we would expect just the opposite. A simple story will illustrate this.

Suppose three friends were lost in the desert with one quart of water to share. During the night, one man quietly gets up and drinks all the water. Most people would be outraged by his behavior because we instinctively recognize that what the scoundrel did was immoral. It violates our innate (God-give) sense of right and wrong that virtually all people acknowledge. In contrast, according to evolution, such behavior is merely survival of the fittest. The man did nothing wrong.  He was under no moral obligation to think about the survival of his friends—just himself.

Conclusion:

The best explanation for humanity’s corporate moral conscience and universal ethical standards is that they originate from a source independent of human thoughts, feelings, and experiences. In short, moral values must flow from the mind of a moral lawgiver—God.  God’s eternal, unchanging moral nature guarantees unchanging, universal moral standards not subject to human capriciousness. ©

Part Four:  Dialogue with an Atheist: The Universe Demands a Creator

With discoveries in astrophysics, molecular biology, and how information is stored and transmitted in DNA, there is a tremendous amount of fairly recent scientific data available that supports divine creation. The following is an example of how this information can be used in a witnessing opportunity.

As I waited for my pickup at a car wash, I overhead a woman tell a coworker she was an atheist. I sat down next to them and listened to the conversation. (They weren’t aware I was paying any attention.) After a while, I leaned over and said, “I couldn’t help overhearing you say that you’re an atheist. I’m curious, why?” Basically, this is how the conversation went from there:

Lady:  “I’m a biological evolutionist, and the evidence proves God doesn’t exist.”

Me:     “What kind of evidence are you talking about?”

Lady:  “People are prejudiced by their understanding of a linear concept of time  and our three-dimensional perception of the world. Everything is just  here,  it has always been here.” (In other words, the universe is eternal so God doesn’t exist.)

Me:     “That sounds like speculation to me. Actually, the evidence suggests that the universe is not eternal.”

Coworker:  “Are you from a Judeo-Christian tradition?”

Me:    “I’m just interested in your point of view and how you came to it. As I understand it, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the impossibility of time extending backward infinitely makes an eternal universe impossible. [Pause] Let me ask you a question. Even if the universe is eternal, where do the laws of physics come from that govern it?”

Lady:  “If you were better trained, you would understand!” [Translation: “Gee, I really can’t answer that!”

This response is typical of many evolutionists. The lady assumed if I didn’t agree with her, I was uninformed.  After her last comment, the two stood up, began looking around to see if their car was finished, and hurriedly walked away. The woman was clearly uncomfortable with having to defend her beliefs. Was this brief discussion worth the time? I hope so.

My reason for sharing this story is to illustrate how a combination of common scientific facts and asking specific questions—thereby putting the burden of proof on the skeptic—can be an effective apologetic technique, even with an alleged “trained” evolutionist. My higher education was not in the sciences, but I’ve done my homework. Neither the woman nor her companion attempted to give any evidence to support the contention that the universe is eternal or that God doesn’t exist. If I encouraged them to see this, I did my job as an apologist.

This is how apologetic encounters often play out. We don’t always have the opportunity to give the Gospel, but we can lay the groundwork. (See 1 Cor. 3:5-9.) Perhaps the next apologist or evangelist God sends their way will be able to share the Gospel with a more willing listener. That’s why apologetics is often referred to as “pre-evangelism.”

By the way, the reason I didn’t identify myself as a Christian is that it would have given them an excuse to ignore my challenges as merely religious.  I wanted to engage them on their own turf—scientifically—so they would consider what I said. ©

Part Three: The Paradox of Good and Evil

In my previous blog post, shortly before my Christmas break, we looked at the evidence for God’s existence based on human intuition. This week we’ll look at a second example, the paradox of good and evil.

Many secular humanists and New Agers teach a favorable view of humanity. People, they claim, are innately good, and as the human race gains more knowledge (or spiritual insight), we will reach ever greater heights of goodness. At best, this is but a half-truth. It is a well-established fact that the human race—including people from every walk of life and every culture throughout history—has a predisposition to do both great good as well as great evil.

It is undeniable a paradox exists between human goodness and human wickedness. On the one hand, being created in God’s image and possessing the communicable attributes of God, such as a moral conscience, people are capable of great good. For example, natural disasters worldwide witness the selfless outpouring of money, resources, and volunteers to aid victims—with Christian organizations often in the vanguard.  Yet, on the other hand, people are equally capable of great evil—as terrorists depict.

Human beings have an innate idea of how we ought to behave but struggle to act accordingly. The Bible explains this paradox.  Although humans are created in God’s image (hence we possess goodness), due to our rebellion against our Creator and rejection of His perfect will for human existence, we possess what theologians often refer to as a “sin nature.” The result is a constant battle between our intuitive understanding of how we ought to behave, and our self-centered desire to engage in behavior our conscience recognizes as sinful. (The Apostle describes this conflict of our two natures in Romans chapter seven.)

History confirms this. People today can be just as greedy, covetous, selfish, cruel, and warlike as they were thousands of years ago. The heart of modern man is no different than the heart of ancient man. Indeed, the twentieth century is said to be the most bloodthirsty in history. Researchers have pointed out that under the umbrella of atheistic governments, more than a hundred and fifty million people were killed during the twentieth century.

The best explanation for humanity’s natural inclination to sin is the biblical revelation that the human race is “fallen” and subsequently possesses a sin nature, a natural proclivity to sin (see, for example, Romans 3:9-18, 23.) Any different ideological perspective contradicts what we observe worldwide, as well as what history records. The Christian worldview, that is, biblical revelation, provides the best explanation for the paradox of good and evil. No other worldview—secular, new age, evolutionary, pantheistic—gives a historically verifiable explanation for why humans are capable of great good as well as great evil. This gives tremendous credence to the claim that God not only exists but is the God revealed in the Bible. Only the Judeo / Christian God reveals human nature as it truly is. ©

Part Two:  God’s Existence Is intuitive to the Human Race— Whether Acknowledged or Not

Every culture throughout recorded history, from the most primitive to the most sophisticated, has believed in the existence of deity and some form of an afterlife. Christian scholar Arthur Roberts wrote,” Intuitions differ around the world, from myths of eternal return to popular stories about the afterlife, but they abound . . . . Persistent transcultural accounts of heaven point toward a reality difficult to comprehend empirically but less difficult to know intuitively.” (Exploring Heaven; What Great Thinkers Tell Us About Our Afterlife with God, 67-68).

The intuitive knowledge that God exists and eternal life await us after physical death is a fundamental human understanding. The best and most satisfying explanation for this worldwide phenomenon is that such knowledge was implanted into the human soul by our creation in God’s image. As King Solomon put it, God has “set eternity in [the human] heart” (Eccl. 3:11).

Christian theologians agree that humankind’s intuitive awareness of God’s existence is part of our created, collective human consciousness. Furthermore, it is an awareness that can be awakened through creation (Romans 1:19-20). Consequently, nature represents a point of contact between God and all humans that rouses what we intuitively know about spiritual realities—even if suppressed. Theologians usually refer to this as “general revelation.”

When we look at the world around us, as well as into our hearts, corporate human experience and observation compel us to recognize that nature is too complex and too beautiful to have come into being without a creator. Something within us is highly skeptical of naturalistic evolution’s notion that nature and the cosmos are a product of mindless, purposeless, random processes. Alongside scientific confirmation,* the best explanation is the one we carry in our hearts—and revealed in Scripture. Nature is an expression of God’s creative glory and handiwork. As King David wrote centuries ago, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1).

This does not mean every view of deity or belief in the afterlife is correct. Logically, when mutually contradicting views exist, only one can be correct—and the opposing views must be false. Christian apologists have overwhelmingly demonstrated that only the biblical view of God and Heaven is correct.  Nevertheless, because God won’t coerce anyone into belief, people can and do suppress general revelation (Romans 1:18), and the objective evidence from centuries of Christian apologetics. Rather than acknowledge and seeking God, many people convince themselves God does not exist or substitute the living God for false gods. The tragic result is God will hold them accountable for rejecting biblical revelation, as well as the truth revealed to the entire human race through general revelation (nature) (Rom. 1: 19-32). ©

* For a summary of scientific and other evidence for God’s existence, see my updated and revised edition of Defending Your Faith” described on my homepage: www.danstory.net.

Part One: Introduction to a New Apologetic Series

 In his book Confessions, fourth-century theologian and Bishop of Hippo, Saint Augustine, wrote: “Man is one of your creatures, Lord, and his instinct is to praise you. . . . because you made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you.”  Augustine captured a profound theological truth in this famous quote. God has placed an intuitive awareness of His existence in the hearts of all people (e.g. Eccl. 3:11-14), and as a result, all people intuitively recognize God exists—whether acknowledged or not.

This innate yearning for a relationship with the Divine is a worldwide phenomenon that has been documented countless times. Studies of ancient and recent civilizations confirm that belief in supernatural beings is an ingredient of all cultures. The same is true in America today.  Depending on the survey and how it’s worded, up to 90% of Americans believe in God.    The fact is, few people are true atheists. Atheism is an anomaly. People are not born atheists; most become atheists by exposure to a secular culture. Consequently, in terms of God’s existence, the issue Christian apologists and evangelists usually encounter is not whether God exists, but what He is like. Often our apologetic task is not to demonstrate that God exists, but to demonstrate He is the God revealed in the Bible.

This is not to say that there aren’t many functioning atheists—people who profess to believe in God but think, talk, and behave as if God doesn’t exist. More serious yet, and the primary reason apologetics in defense of God’s existence is important, the majority of America’s cultural pacesetters—the intellectual elite who control the media, entertainment industries, and run our universities—are atheists or functioning atheists. They clearly promote a human-centered and often immoral, godless worldview that has permeated virtually all sectors of modern culture. Since the 1960s, atheists have been remarkably triumphant in promoting their ideology, emphasizing that belief in God is irrational or irrelevant. Although relatively few in number compared to theists, atheists wield tremendous influence in secular society and need to be reckoned with.

There are many arguments for God’s existence.  Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics, dedicate a chapter to twenty such arguments. In the following blog posts in this new series, I have selected what I believe are the most effective, usable, and durable arguments for God’s existence. They include scientific, philosophical, and subjective evidence.

For a more in-depth look at atheism and how to respond to it,  see my revised and expanded edition of Defending Your Faith; Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Seekers and Skeptics (Kregel Publications, 2019).  ©

Part Eleven:  Final Thoughts on Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution  is  Untenable

 In his book, The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin cautioned, “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.” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 135) The previous ten blog posts in this series are examples that Darwin’s challenge has been met, and there are good reasons for the theory of evolution to “break down.”

Increasing numbers of  Ph.D. scientists from a variety of fields agree. A well-known example is Michael Denton, a medical doctor, molecular biologist, and self-described agnostic with no a priori theological or philosophical objection to evolution. Denton is not a creationist, nor is he a Christian. In1985 he wrote in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:

The concept of the continuity of nature [uninterrupted evolution from common ancestors] has existed in the mind of man never in the facts of nature. In a very real sense, therefore, advocacy of the doctrine of continuity has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism, and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach. (353-354)

During the ensuing decades, a tremendous amount of new scientific evidence challenging Darwinism has accumulated, especially in molecular biology, astrophysics, and how information is stored and transmitted in DNA. In 2016—more than thirty years later—Denton revisited Darwinism and wrote a new book titled Evolution: Still a theory in Crisis. In it he points out the undeserved power Darwinism still holds in the scientific community:

       Despite its obvious failure . . . . [t]he perception that Darwinism is “the only game in town” has been reinforced since the middle of the twentieth century by makers of the neo-Darwinian “modern synthesis,” who imposed on biology the conviction that the evolutionary argument was over and that the Darwinian functionalist paradigm had won the day. In their view, adaption was everything—the primal organization principle of biology—and the extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution was embedded in concrete. (emphasis mine, p. 277)

The neo-Darwinian model of naturalistic evolution remains a philosophy of science and empirically indemonstrable. It requires us to believe the universe suddenly came into existence out of nothing; It requires us to believe that out of the chaos and disorder of the big bang “explosion” materialized order, design, and harmony; it requires non-living chemicals to have somehow “evolved” into a living, self-replicating organism; it requires us to believe from a single-celled organism evolved all the amazingly diverse and complex life forms that ever lived on earth, in spite of the rarity of beneficial mutations and lack of function allowing for successive stages in natural selection. Beyond this, naturalistic evolution requires us to believe that human moral values evolved from amorality; human intelligence arose from irrationality; and that all human emotions, feelings, and thoughts are merely an extension of mindless matter.

By comparison, creationists look at a perfectly balanced universe; the precision and design of plant and animal life; the harmony and beauty of nature; human moral conscience and rationality; human emotions such as love, joy, peace, and happiness—and logically conclude they have their source in an intelligent, moral, loving, all-powerful, creative God. Which requires the most faith to believe? ©

Part Ten:  Oddball Creatures with Characteristics of Two Categories of Animals

This series of blog posts would be incomplete without mentioning a couple of animals that are a total paradox in terms of Darwinian evolution: The egg-laying mammal–the Duckbill Platypus—and the air-breathing Lungfish. The lungfish has fins and gills like regular fish but also lungs, a heart, and a larval stage like an amphibian. The fascinating platypus has a duck-like bill, a flat tail like a beaver, webbed feet in front and clawed feet in the rear, as well as hair, mammary glands, and other characteristics found only in mammals. It also lays eggs like a reptile, and males have a spur on the hind foot that produces venom—as do some reptiles.

Does the lungfish represent an intermediate stage between fish and amphibians? Does the platypus represent an intermediate stage between reptiles and mammals? No to both questions because none of their respective organs are transitional. Lungfish organs that resemble a fish are typical of ordinary fish, and those that resemble an amphibian are like those found in other amphibians. They are not “halfway” developed organs evolving between the two. Evolutionists claim lungfish first appeared hundreds of millions of years ago, yet paleontologists assume they had “functional lungs comparable to  those species living today.” Likewise, the reproductive system and structure of eggs in the platypus are fully reptilian, but its mammary glands, hair, and so on are fully mammalian.

The lungfish and platypus have a fascinating mixture of distinct, fully developed organs not normally found in one species—but in no way are they (or could they) represent a transitional species in processes of evolving.  How could either animal represent intermediate species when fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals had allegedly already evolved into their existing forms many millions of years ago?

More to the point, there are other daunting challenges for evolutionary science is to explain in terms of these two animals’ incongruous organs. What imaginary evolutionary pathway could initiate a fish or mammal to develop entirely different and fundament structures, unlike other animals in their respective groups? How could lungs evolve little by little with no function (survival value) during each developing stage to allow for natural selection to work? And if a Platypus, like other mammals, suckles its young, what survival value would prompt it to evolve the ability to leg eggs like a reptile? No reptile suckles its young.

The best explanation:  A divine Creator with a sense of humor! ©

Part Nine:  Venus Flytrap

 Living things with unique features that can exist only if divinely created are also evident in the plant world. One of the best examples is the Venus flytrap. Like other plants, Venus flytraps gather nutrients from the soil and synthesize food through photosynthesis from carbon dioxide and water. However, Venus flytraps are also meat-eaters and feed on spiders, flies, ants, and other insects.

To achieve this requires flytraps to have several highly specialized organs that allow them to capture and devour prey. They include:

• Trapping mechanisms composed of two leaf lobes hinged together that can open and close on their prey.
• Trigger hairs that grow on both lobes so that when an insect lands on a leaf, the plant can identify it as prey and close the trap to capture it.
• Teeth-like structures on the edge of the leaves, which lace together when the trap is closed to prevent the insect from escaping.
• Digestive juices similar to those in a human stomach to dissolve the prey.

That such a plant even exists is compelling evidence for a divine Designer. Beyond that, it’s hard to imagine how each of these complex, mutually dependent parts could have evolved simultaneously by pure chance—all the while maintaining function during each alleged evolutionary step—to eventually become a fully formed insect-eating plant. Once again, the best explanation is creation.

The Venus flytrap is not the only plant with features that defy random evolutionary processes. Former evolutionists, Michael Denton, a medical doctor who also holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry, writes: “Botany offers many examples of adaptions which have never been explained convincingly in gradualistic terms.” (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 225) David Demick, also a medical doctor, makes an intriguing comment relative to plant physiology in general:

Plant cells have metabolic energy-producing structures and reactions similar to our own cells, but have, in addition, the complex mechanisms for photosynthesis. This would appear to give them, at the cellular level, a survival advantage, since they can use the daily presence of sunlight as a food source, and not rely on the uncertainties of a scavenger existence. . . . Why, then, have plant cells—or euglenoid organisms—not evolved to a higher level than animal cells? Why, indeed, did they ever split off from the animal kingdom at all (or vice-versa)? And, why did the “higher plants” evolve the ability to produce virtually every one of the many vitamin and mineral nutrients needed by the bodies of animals, and thus set themselves up as our main food target. . . .  [Many plants also] contain . . . chemicals that have healing and restorative properties for us. Physicians and pharmacologists have long known that the green world is the source of most of the useful medicines and balms which can bring healing and relief of suffering. Why should the plants have evolved the means of healing their evolutionary enemies? (Impact, “The Unselfish Green Gene” in Acts and Facts)

The answer is simple, and the Bible provides it in Genesis 1:29-30. ©

Part Eight:  The Woodpecker’s Tongue

To find prey, woodpeckers hammer their beaks into the bark of trees and probe into crevices with remarkably long tongues. How did this specialized approach for obtaining insects and grubs develop without damaging the woodpeckers’ skulls and brains? And how did some woodpeckers develop such a long tongue until after they evolved a place to store it when not in use? Dr. Gary Parker explains:

       Take the flicker woodpecker. . . . How did banging its head into trees increase its likelihood for survival—until after it had accumulated (by chance?) a thick skull with shock absorbing tissues, muscles, etc.! And what would be the survival value of all these features (and how could they build up in the population) until after the bird started banging its head into trees?

       And what about the beetle under the bark? . . . Before any of the drilling adaptions can have any fitness, the woodpecker must have a long, sticky tongue to reach what it somehow knows is good food under the tough tree bark.

       But if you have a long, sticky tongue and you’re a bird where do you put the long tongue? For the woodpecker, the answer is to wrap its tongue under the skin and bring it clear around the head and insert it in the right nostril! Now, if you start with an ordinary bird with a short tongue and no tongue sheath, what would you do in the intermediate states—perhaps, for example, with a tongue too long for the bill but too short to catch the beetles you’ve just been beating your head into trees to catch?

       The example may seem humorous but the point is serious: How can Darwinian fitness be used to explain traits with many interdependent parts when none of the separate parts has any survival value?  (Creation; The Facts of Life, 51)

Good Point!

Evolutionists argue woodpecker tongues are just an elongated version of tongues found in all birds. Moreover, they add, the woodpecker’s tongue is a “perfect example of how anatomical structures can be shaped into new forms by mutations and natural selection.” Do you see the problem here? They assume woodpecker tongues developed through “mutations and natural selection,” yet they offer no evidence or demonstrable evolutionary pathway. Not only would it require an unimaginable number of beneficial mutations (and the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial), but they don’t even try to explain how each alleged successive stage could simultaneous evolve with other stages and work together, when every independent stage would have no function to allow natural selection to begin working.

The woodpecker’s ability to find and retrieve insects and grubs reveals an amazing adaptive feature (microevolution) that defies any logical explanation other than a divine Designer. ©

Part Seven:  The Incredible Eye

Evolutionists claim the human eye (and all eyes for that matter) evolved from a light-sensitive spot on a tiny organism in the distant past. However, Charles Darwin himself admitted the idea of the eye evolving through natural selection was “absurd in the highest degree:” He wrote in The Origin of Species:

       To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. (The Origin of Species, 133)

Of course Darwin went on to try to justify his speculations. But this doesn’t change the fact that he recognized the absurdity of natural selection accounting for the evolution of the eye. Today, more than ever, there is even greater reason to reject natural selection as the origin and development of human and all other eyes. Consider the dragonfly. Dr. Werner Gitt explains:

Just imagine, each dragonfly eye consists of thousands of individual compound eyes. Each individual eye is equipped with half a million switching elements. Each of these functional elements is a hundred times smaller than the smallest switching element in your modern compute technology. Naturally, each individual eye has its own lens, or, more accurately, microlens.” (Creation Speaks for Itself; If Animals Could Talk, 75)

Like the other examples we’ve looked at in this blog series, for the alleged light-sensitive spot to develop into a fully functioning eye requires the interdependent parts that comprise it to have function at every stage of development. But this is impossible because each part could have no function until the light-sensitive spot itself was fully developed and operational. This is a classic case of an evolutionary “catch-22”: The individual parts of the light-sensitive spot could not have come into existence independent of natural selection, yet natural selection could not have begun until the individual parts of the eyespot are already functioning! Dr. Gitt adds this:

             Every individual part of the eye can only enable sight in the presence other parts at the same time and provided they are all working together correctly. If the eye were complete except for the lens, the whole organ would be useless. Evolution can neither deign nor plan ahead. Even existing products can’t be modified. (84)

So how did the human and other eyes come to be fully formed and functioning? You’re right—they were designed by a divine creator. ©