In this article, I will discuss three problems with the scientific, historical, and philosophical approaches of those who believe they can explain life and the universe without reference to a Christian God. This list is hardly exhaustive (I know there is plenty in the field of “intelligent design in nature” alone), but it represents what I consider to be some of the most concerning problems with naturalistic scholarship that I am aware of.

Something From Nothing

It has been said by many that the Big Bang theory allows for at least one miracle, since it assumes that all the matter in the universe just suddenly appeared. There is, however, far more to it than that. The state of the universe as we have it now suggests a chain of sequential miracles that cannot be explained by science.

First, as just mentioned, the Big Bang would be a miracle. The law of conservation of matter states that “in any given system that is closed to the transfer of matter (in and out), the amount of matter in the system stays constant.” So, unless the universe is an open system that received an influx of matter from a different system, how did even a single atom’s worth of matter come into existence in the universe, much less the extraordinary amount that exists now? How did quintillions of atoms’ worth of matter appear out of nowhere?

Second, let’s consider the idea of atoms. Let’s say you set a book down on a table. If you then leave that book there for a million years (assuming the conditions that would cause either the book or table to break down and eventually disintegrate don’t apply), it will still be in the exact same position you left it in after the million years are over. Matter doesn’t move on its own (according to Newton’s First Law of Motion, a body at rest will stay at rest unless an outside force acts on it), nor does it organize itself into new structures on its own.

Therefore, the question becomes: how did the matter that came into the universe form itself into the structured arrangements of atoms, which have electrons orbiting a nucleus? How did every piece of matter in the universe transition from its initial state into pieces that are both structured and moving?

Third, how did atoms form themselves into molecules? For example, how did so many hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine together into water molecules? Once again, matter doesn’t have any natural affinity for movement or organization without being manipulated externally.

Fourth, how did our planet form? How could non-sentient, inorganic matter form a planetary core, a crust, oceans, and an atmosphere? Even if the matter in the Big Bang came in at high-speed (which would mean there was not just an influx of matter but also energy), the idea that such a complex structure would happen as a result of random collisions of matter is like suggesting that if you throw a bunch of paint at a canvas enough times, eventually you’ll randomly produce Rembrandt’s The Night Watch. This could simply never happen, because there is a specific way the paint has to be applied and layered that requires intention, not random accident.

Fifth, even if you manage to account for all that, how do you account for life? What is the origin of lifeforms that not only move and structure themselves on their own, but grow and develop more of themselves? How on earth could a universe full of non-sentient, inorganic matter suddenly produce something that makes more of itself? Once again, you can pile a mountain of inorganic items into a landfill, and it will just sit there for millions of years. What got life started?

Sixth and finally, where did sexual reproduction come from? Most evolutionary explanations for certain traits of living creatures are based on the notion that they appeared spontaneously (which is yet another problem) and propagated themselves because they provided a survival advantage that allowed their owners to breed more successfully. But if the less complex forms of life that produce asexually came first in the history of the universe, how could sexual reproduction have spread through sexual reproduction if sexual reproduction didn’t exist yet?

Let’s consider what it would take for sexual reproduction to come into existence (there may even be more factors than what I listed below):

• The male sexual organ
• The female sexual organ
• The womb
• The birthing process
• Sexual pleasure and attraction
• The maternal instinct
• The paternal instinct

Without all of these combined, sexual reproduction fails, and so there is no evolutionary advantage to developing any one component without the rest. So how did all of these co-mutate simultaneously?

Also, did one creature evolve all of this itself in an instant? Or did two asexually reproducing creatures happen to spontaneously evolve compatible sexual organs and processes in close proximity to one another at the same time? Either of these options would be a straightforward miracle.

Moreover, if this all happened in one creature (which seems more likely than two creatures in close proximity randomly generating all these complex mechanisms that were compatible with one another), then all sexually reproducing creatures are descended from one creature. One creature must have asexually reproduced at least one brother and sister pair that then reproduced, until all the various sexually reproducing breeds developed.

This is a real “Adam and Eve” situation. This mutation could not have spread to any other creature around it, because there was no way for this Ground Zero creature to interact sexually with the other asexual creatures around it. This means that any evolutionary advantage of sexual reproduction would have only helped by increasing survival potential, not attractiveness to mates.

But to that end, is sexual reproduction really that advantageous? It heavily burdens the female from a defense and resource perspective. It creates an extra burden on the father as well in many species. And to what end? Asexual reproduction seems easy, quick, and secure. Why would such a complex process develop, other than by divine decree?

As you can see, all the mechanisms used by naturalist scientists to explain our universe assume the pre-existence of certain things (such as matter, life, and sexual reproduction) that are impossible to explain without some kind of intentional force shaping and controlling the universe.

The simplest explanation is that in the beginning there was a Creator who created matter from nothing, then organized it at all levels, from the atomic to the celestial, and then created life in all its various forms.

This of course raises the question: where did God come from? The answer is both easy to express and impossible to comprehend. Basically, before the universe was created, God existed outside of time. The concepts of time and cause and effect are built into the universe He designed and created, such that we, who are part of that creation, cannot comprehend a reality without them. God now “dwells” in His creation, but questions about His origin or “Who created God?” are not conceptually meaningful, no matter how difficult that may be for us to grasp.

The idea of comprehending God’s true nature by understanding time or cause and effect from His perspective is a bit like trying to smell pure air, taste pure water, or hear our own accent. These things are built into our sense of consciousness and have been with us since birth, so we can’t grasp what they would be like to someone or something that didn’t have them as part of themselves. This is how foreign the concept of God’s reality before the universe was created is to us.

The Irresistible Pull of Truth

Which of the following two options do you think would be closer to an ideal society?

• One in which everyone believes that there is no such thing as objective right and wrong or any eternal consequences for evil behavior. Everyone holds the promotion of their own interests as the highest good and only pursues the interests of others in order to further their own interests.
• One in which everyone believes a God who judges people in both this life and the next has established a clear system of right and wrong, which is grounded on the obligation to recognize God as the highest authority and to respect the needs and wants of other people. Everyone strives to fulfill all their responsibilities (family, work, community, etc.), be kind and compassionate, put others’ needs above their own, and avoid all unhealthy addictions and behaviors. Any restrictions placed by one person on another are solely done for the good of the restricted person and the safety of the community as a whole.

Clearly the second option would produce a much more happy, safe, and harmonious society. It is also the exact society that would result if every human on earth took the Bible completely literally and sought to live in total accordance with the Christian God’s commandments (I will discuss in the Gospel and Church sections how common forms of Christianity violate the Bible’s instructions).

Let’s say you accept this and say, “Yes, there are good things that come out of following Christianity or other religions. That doesn’t mean the Bible is true.”

There are three huge flaws with this response.

First, even though every religion has adopted certain laws and religious principles that are also found in the Bible (like outlawing murder), what sets Christianity apart is its central focus on pursuing the welfare of the outsider and the enemy. Every other religious and social system draws a line around its “in-group” and puts the welfare of the “out-group” below that of the “in-group.”

In this respect, Christianity stands alone. Consider Romans 5:6-11: For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

God sent His only begotten Son to die for humanity while we were “ungodly,” “sinners” (i.e., spiritual criminals), and “enemies.” God suffered so that those who rejected Him could avoid the just punishment for their sins. In the Bible, we see the early church likewise suffering and going to great lengths to bring their enemies and skeptics to a saving faith in Christ, solely for the benefit of those enemies and skeptics.

I am unaware of any other religion that is completely oriented around the needs of those with whom its adherents are not closely affiliated or aligned. Jews, Muslims, even many calling themselves Christians pursue the welfare of those within their religion above the needs of their enemies and opponents. And without that essential element, no other religion can possibly bring about reconciliation between warring nations or religions or factions, because the pursuit of one’s own self-interest has no transformative power in society.

Therefore, only Christianity offers the blueprint for global peace, health, and happiness.

Second, if you believe Christianity to be false, consider the implications of agreeing that following it produces the best possible outcome, or at least a better outcome than whatever you consider to be true. What you are then saying is that believing and following the truth leads to a worse outcome than believing and following a lie.

This means truth is not the key to individual happiness and collective harmony. Why, then, do you seek to know and understand the truth about science and history? Why do you seek to properly understand anything about life and reality? Wouldn’t promoting falsehoods and lies be the best path forward for humanity? In fact, wouldn’t the best thing for you be to somehow trick yourself into believing a useful lie?

Realistically, if Darwinian evolution were correct, we would expect humans to have evolved to pursue the interests of themselves and those with whom they are allied above all else, truth and ideals be hanged. But instead, an insatiable need to seek and grasp truth is built into you because, as discussed previously, you are made in the image of God, and God is truth. Jesus said, “The truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). We take this so deeply for granted that we find the idea of deliberately deceiving ourselves to be repulsive. But when we agree that false beliefs could produce better outcomes than true ones, we subtly agree that truth does not contain the power to make things right.

Third, if you believe in an objective idea of right and wrong (for example, murder is inherently “wrong” in some sense, not just a morally neutral action that we have evolved to reject for survival reasons), then it follows logically that whatever system of belief generates the closest adherence to right and wrong is the closest one to the truth. It would be chaos to suggest that foundational beliefs that are far from the truth about reality could result in better moral behavior than foundational beliefs that are close to the truth.

What misleads people about this is the fact that when a person leaves a belief system, their moral system does not automatically change immediately (or ever). For example, someone raised in a culture based on Christian beliefs could deconstruct their faith and become an atheist, agnostic, or “spiritual but not religious” person, but still feel strongly that murder, gossip, and violence are wrong, because that was how he or she was raised. This is the case in our society.

Unfortunately, as new generations arise, new members of society are raised earlier and earlier in life on the new set of foundational beliefs. That is why younger Americans are increasingly embracing cyberbullying, violence in political protests (which is essentially terrorism), a complete lack of any sexual limitations or mores, cancelling and silencing people who challenge their beliefs, a decreased work ethic and sense of obligation to their communities, increased consumption of addictive substances, etc.

If one believes there is any objective morality in the universe, this trend is effectively proof that moving from the Christian society we had earlier in our nation’s history (even if it was flawed in how it applied the Bible) to our current state of moral relativism and spiritual universalism put us further from the objective truth about the nature of reality.

For all these reasons, only Christianity properly grounds in truth the effort to bring about peace, health, and happiness in both individuals and communities.

The Universality of Christian Elements

There are a number of elements of human nature and societies that do not jive with the idea of Darwinian evolution but are completely consistent with the Bible’s creation account. For example (this list is not exhaustive):

• Even if spiritual experiences can be induced through drugs or meditation, there is still a universal desire for spiritual experiences, even amongst those who don’t believe in God. Why would this evolutionarily develop as a feature of our consciousness, if there is no spiritual realm?
• Why does every culture have a seven-day week? Is there any known culture that did not establish a seven-day week?
• Why does every culture have marriage, when Plato demonstrated in The Republic that marriage may not be the most evolutionarily advantageous framework for human reproduction?
• Why does every primitive culture have priests and sacrifices? What is the evolutionary advantage of destroying resources or murdering virgins for no discernable or provable gain?
• Why are humans driven by a desire for meaning and purpose in their lives, rather than solely a desire to survive?

The only way to explain some of these is to suggest that somehow mankind evolved in such a way that orienting itself around imaginary ideas produced the best evolutionary outcomes. However, that runs into the same problem mentioned in the last section about the importance of truth: could even evolution work better responding to imaginary survival constraints over ones that actually exist?

The simplest answer to all these questions is that all these elements exist because they are reflective of a spiritual reality that also exists, namely, a Christian God who created and ordered the universe the way the Bible describes it.

This simple explanation also covers the following challenges to secular rejection of faith:

• If we are born pristine, then why didn’t the Enlightenment consume the world? Why wouldn’t a more rational system that better handles our emotions and structures our religious and civil systems have wiped out all the defective and irrational religious and spiritual systems in place?
• Why is faith so persistent in human individuals and groups? What could possibly present such an overwhelming evolutionary advantage in the history of human development as to make such completely irrational systems so deeply entrenched, even when powerful governments like the USSR and China have worked so tirelessly to stamp them out?
• If faith is false, why is truth so weak? Why hasn’t it won the day? Why is most of the world still in some form of faith-based intellectual system? Even those who are “spiritual but not religious” still have faith in some kind of divine force. Why are there so few people in the world who are truly pure atheists with no belief of any kind in a divine force or being, even after all the secular philosophy and Darwinist science and humanist historical scholarship produced and the multiple attempts made to run societies according to pure reason (like the French Revolution, the USSR, Communist China, etc.)?

Further Information

If you are interested in exploring further, there are plenty of good resources out there. For example, Answers in Genesis provides lots of information about how the accounts in Genesis might have realistically played out. Of course, you would need to let go of any knee-jerk reaction to creationism as ridiculous and irrational – remember, if the Bible is true, that reaction is based on resistance to any ideas that challenge the intellectual mechanisms that protect your sin. There is certainly no harm in being open minded and evaluating the claims of creationists objectively and fairly.

As you explore these resources, you will come across other important challenges to secular science, such as: if the layers of sediment we see stacked on top of each other in certain places on Earth represent the settling of sediment in phases over millions of years, why are they perfectly flat and even? If they settled slowly, wouldn’t there have been erosion that would cause them to be highly uneven? Wouldn’t their perfectly flat nature be better explained by a rapid worldwide natural disaster like a global flood? 

Because geology is not an area of strong interest for me, I have not delved too deep into that particular issue, nor have I laid out any others that I do not feel a strong sense of ownership over. I just want to give a sense that there are many challenges out there to the so-called “proven” secular models that are so widely believed today.