Site Information

 Loading... Please wait...

Scientific Evidence for a Creator? Part 2

Posted by Daryl van Benschoten on

Hubble Image "Pillars of Creation"

In Part 1, we discussed some of the evidence including the extremely precise fine-tuning of the universe, beginning with the “Big Bang”. “The great British mathematician Roger Penrose once calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined.” And again, that was based on only one of the hundreds of different physical constants - that are all just right.

Before outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins and the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens came along, Antony Flew (1923-2010) may have been the world's most famous atheist. That was until 2004, when he shocked the world by announcing he had come to believe in God.

In an interview with Dr. Benjamin Wiker for strangenotions.com, Antony Flew was asked about his gradual conversion from atheist to deist (and possibly eventually theist as we don’t know his exact beliefs in God before his death) and explained there were two factors in particular that were decisive. He said “one was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so." 

Flew explained, "with every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.”

Flew added, "it has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."3

Dr. Amir Aczel said “The process of making life from nonlife, which was believed to have happened by chance near the beginning of the earth's history, could not be replicated in the laboratory even in the most favorable conditions.”

We hear a lot about “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest”, as the explanation for life as we know it. But there had to be something to begin with, something to be selected and something to be fittest to survive. Where did the first life(s) come from? One side has an answer – an intelligent designer or Creator that turned non-living elements into complex life. The other side says we were just “lucky”. Former atheists like Dr. Antony Flew, Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Francis Collins, have concluded, for reasons including recent science, that they can no longer buy the argument that we are just really really lucky. Tell us what you think. 

comments powered by Disqus