Start here…
The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important questions we have to answer. I think it is a scientific question. – Richard Dawkins
The universe is unlikely. Very unlikely. Deeply, shockingly, unlikely – Discover magazine
The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers… the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. – Professor Stephen Hawking
The Universe we live in seems to be a very unlikely place… Are we just lucky? Or is there some deep significance to the fact that we live in a Universe just right for us? – New Scientist magazine
The impression of design is overwhelming. – Professor Paul Davies
Nothing has shaken my atheism as much as this discovery. – Professor Sir Fred Hoyle
Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since to come to see that, when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God. – Professor Anthony Flew
Richard Dawkins claims that God is a delusion and that religious faith is evil. But what if the scientific evidence itself is telling a different story? Over the past fifty years scientists have uncovered a series of amazing facts which show that the creation is an extremely unlikely place, fine-tuned in specific ways that make human life possible. It shows all the signs that it has been purposefully designed as a place for us to live. ‘GOD: new evidence’ is a series of videos about these remarkable discoveries that point us towards the Creator.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
This is amazing and encouarging for a Chrisitan
The argument about design may be interpreted either backwards or forwards. We may think it remarkable that the physical conditions – the laws of nature – are exactly right to support our existence. But, since our evolution occurred purely as a result of those conditions, surely we evolved to fit them (Darwin) and not they to fit us. The laws of nature were not designed so that we could exist, but that we exist because of what they are. The argument of a Divine creator is based solely on man’s arrogant sense of self-improtance.
‘The argument about design may be interpreted either backwards or forwards…’
I don’t think it works like this, because there are so many ways in which the universe might not have supported ANY kind of complicated life at all: if the initial density had been much more, the universe would have collapsed again quickly in a ‘big crunch.’ If it had been much less, everything would have flown apart so fast that complicated things like galaxies and stars and planets wouldn’t have formed. If the balance of physical forces had been different, the universe would only ever have contained hydrogen….
So the argument is that if the universe wasn’t precisely the way it is, any complicated beings like us would be impossible. Not only that, but the tunings of the physical laws appear to be highly improbable. So yes, we exist because the laws of nature are as they are – but the fact that they are as they are is a very unlikely ‘coincidence.’
On the contary, R.E. Barker, it takes a lot more humility to acknowledge that we are the creation of a supreme intelligence. If the evidence points to a supreme creator, it is the height of arrogance to insist that we all got here purely by ‘chance’. Darwinism cannot explain the starting conditions. It simply seeks to propose a model of how the diversity of life came about, but why are the conditions just right for life in the first place?
Surely we all know deep down, that nothing comes from nothing and if we are not moved by creation to wonder then we are not capable of wondering. The problem lies not within the universe but within the mindset of the beholder. Because the design is intelligent , it takes intelligence to recognise it and the highest form of intelligence is humility. Without humility no recognition. Sorry!!
But this alleged evidence could just as easily point to a non-Christian God. Are Christians comfortable with that idea?
I have been reading two amazing books that have offered an astonishing challenge to my assumptions about the theory of evolution and the nature of life.
The first is called “A meaningful World” by Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt.
The second is called: “Evolution, Creationism and other Modern Myths”.
What if the evidence for Darwin’s theory is fundamentally flawed and not backed by any serious scientific evidence?
What if the alleged evidence of the fossil record simply doesn’t exist?
What if Darwin’s basic observations such as finches on the Galapagos islands don’t have the adaption characteristics claimed?
What if the text book illustrations of adapting moths were falsified at source?
What if the theories of sedimentation and the origins of “fossil fuel” formation can be fundamentally challenged?
It has left me feeling as though the theory of evolution, as popularly presented, comes close to the story of Father Christmas.
I have found this revelation strangely liberating. The bleak pronouncements of evolutionary propagandists have a humanity-denying direction that saps the spirit and suggests that life is fundamentally accidental and meaningless.
I have not yet arrived at my own “myth” but feel that the exploration can now re-commence without concern for this particular “science-myth” that is paradoxically life denying.
Brian, what you say is correct. But most Christians would not claim that science proves that the Christian God is real.
They would claim that the findings of science support the claim that there is a rational and powerful God of some sort, and are fully compatible with what we know about the Christian God from other ways he revealed himself to us. To put it another way, Christian teaching about what God is like fits with and explains what we have found out about the world through science, and even explains it better than atheistic presuppositions can.