What do you say if someone tells you
they think science proves Christianity to be false?
This was the final exam question for my Core 300 class
in at Spring Arbor University, Biblical History and Literature, taught
by Dr. Chuck White. All of this information is either from lectures
or ideas from How Now Shall We Live by Charles Colson.
Science can be very unreliable -- it is not always certain.
There is evidence against it, and there is evidence in
Scientists sometimes "cheat" in their attempts
to prove theories. They will sometimes do whatever is necessary to
show what they believe to be the truth. Take Miller's experiments
In Miller's experiments, scientists made what they called "life"
(actually all they made was a form of amino acids -- some of which are
necessary components for life) from chemicals in an effort to prove that
life did not have to be a result of God. However:
The chemicals and the surrounding environment used in these experiments
did not provide the same conditions that there were when life would have
formed according to the theory of evolution. Any necessary changes
were made to get the desired result -- life. If life really did form
from chemicals, as these experiments "prove", the chemicals and environment
would most likely have been unpure and contaminated by who knows what!
Amino acids (a part of DNA) did emerge from the chemicals, but they were
useless for life. There are what are called "right-handed" and also
"left-handed" amino acids. Left-handed amino acids are needed for
life. But only right-handed amino acids were formed in these experiments.
The amino acids created were linked in a random order. In order for
life to be formed, they must be in a specific order.
David Hume was a philosopher and an historian,
and also a skeptic of any evolutionary theory.
Skeptic's Dictionary - contains an outline of Hume's views on miracles
Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article "Modern Skepticism" - discusses
Basically, David Hume's beliefs include:
There is no objective reality
There is no way to really tell what something is caused by, or what something
There is not necessarily continuity of nature -- who really knows
if the sun will come up tomorrow?
What are the chances of the world coming
about by chance?
There is too much chance involved to be confident of the Big
Bang, evolution, etc.
The chance of amino acids and proteins formed in experiments being all
left-handed and in the specific order to create life is very slim.
The Many Worlds Hypothesis says that there is life elsewhere in
the universe. However...
There are 19 factors necessary for life to exist. There is only one
star in 1026 stars that has these 19 factors.
There are only 1023 stars in the universe.
That means there is only one chance in 1000 that Earth would even
exist at all.
Even if the argument of natural selection is valid, it is still designed!
It must have been, because it's perfect! What are the chances
The size and shape of Earth's orbit is perfect for life. If it were
any closer to the sun, it would burn up, and if it were any farther away,
it would freeze. Life could not exist on Earth in these cases.
Gravity is perfect. If it were any stronger, the universe would have
collapsted into the sun. If it were any weaker, everything would
be moving away from the sun too quickly, and formations of stars would
never have been made.
DNA contains so much information that it could not possibly have come about
by chance or law. It must be by design (according to Dembski's filter
theory). DNA has such a high information content, while anything
by chance or law has a low information content.
Mutations -- the idea just doesn't work!
A mutation is an error in the genetic code. Therefore it generally
causes more problems than good.
The probability of evolution occurring is only one chance in 1021.
There are 1080 particles in the universe.
1042 mutations can occur per second.
It has been approximately 1017 seconds since the Big Bang.
There is only once chance in 1021 that 500 positive mutations
will occur in a row, for humans to evolve.
There is a limit to selection.
Provine vs. Johnson debate
Provine says there is no limit to selection while Johnson disagrees and
says that the limit is the creation of a new species (maybe millions of
changes in a species can take place, but a new species will never be formed).
If there was no limit, we should have been able to make a new species of
(fruit flies) since they have a short life span and are ideal for experimentation,
but we have only made fruit flies with bigger wings, different eyes, etc.
They are still fruit flies, not new species.
Evolution would have to be somewhat gradual.
One species could not have just borne another completely different species.
But gradual evolution is impossibly, due to the irreducible complexity
thory. For example:
A mousetrap only works when it has all of its parts. Take away the
cheese and the mouse doesn't approach the trap. Take away the lever
that holds the cheese, and even if the mouse were to approach the trap,
it wouldn't do anything. Take away the part that comes down on the
mouse, and all it would be is a mouse feeder. All the parts have
to be there for it to work.
If a fish were to evolve into a land animal, then at some point, the breathing
device would have to change. A land animal with gills would suffocate,
and a fish with lungs would drown.
The 12-step argument for Christianity
There was a Jesus of Nazareth.
Gospels are reasonably historically accurate.
Ossuaries (bones in jars) have been found with notes that said "Jesus help
me" from times when Jesus was alive.
Josephus - Antiques of the Jews
Tecitus - Annals
Surtonius - Claudius
Sanhedrin - Tulmud
Jesus thought he was God.
They are written by eye-witnesses, or recorded testimony of eye-witnesses.
They are written in close time to the events that were recorded.
They are accurate when compared to other contemporary documents (peoples'
Jesus either was God or wasn't, and he either knew who he was or didn't.
He claimed to forgive sins. (Mark 2:10)
He said, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
He answered "yes" to the question at his trial, "Are you the Christ the
son of God?" (Matt 26:63)
Jesus said he would prove that he was God by rising from the dead.
Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilat and did die on the cross.
On the third day after Jesus died on the cross, his tomb was empty.
Jesus was seen alive by more than 500 people.
His disciples came to believe he was God.
If Jesus is God and knows it, he is LORD.
If Jesus is God and doesn't know it, that is absurd.
If Jesus isn't God, and says he is, he is a liar.
If Jesus isn't God, and doesn't know who he is, he is a lunatic.
The explanation that Jesus rose from the dead is the most reasonable explanation
If Jesus told the truth when he claimed he would rise from the dead, it
is reasonable to believe he told the truth when he claimed to be God.
If Jesus is God of the universe, he should be God of my life -- and yours!
They did not expect him to die.
They did not expect him to rise from the dead.
They were Jews to whom the idea of a God-man was incredible.