The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

The famous philosopher from the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas, is generally given credit for
articulating what is known as the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, although the Bible
described the essence of the argument hundreds of years before he was on the scene (e.g., Hebrews
3:4). The argument essentially says that the cosmos is here and had to come from somewhere. It
could not have created itself. Nothing comes from nothing in nature, as verified by the First Law of
Thermodynamics (Miller, 2013).

The rational person will only draw conclusions that are supported by the evidence (Ruby, 1960, pp.
130-131). The evidence from the natural realm indicates that every material effect must have an
adequate antecedent (or simultaneous—Miller, 2012a) cause. The mass of a paper clip is not going to
provide sufficient gravitational pull to cause a tidal wave. There must be an adequate cause for the
tidal wave, like a massive, offshore, underwater earthquake (“Tsunamis,” 2000, pp. 1064, 2000).
Leaning against a mountain will certainly not cause it to topple over. Jumping up and down on the
ground will not cause an earthquake. If a chair is not placed in an empty room, the room will remain
chairless. If matter was not made and placed in the Universe, we would not exist. There must be an
adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause for every material effect. If this Law of Cause and Effect
seems intuitive to you, then you understand why the Cosmological Argument is powerful, logical
evidence for the existence of God.

CAUSALITY AND HISTORY

The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for
millennia. From at least the time of Plato (1966, 1:96a-b) and Aristotle (2009, 1[3]) in the fourth
century B.C., philosophers have pondered causality. In 1781, the renowned German philosopher
Immanuel Kant wrote concerning the Principle of Causality in his Critique of Pure Reason that
“everything that happens presupposes a previous condition, which it follows with absolute certainty,
in conformity with a rule…. All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause
and Effect” (Kant, 1781, emp. added). In the nineteenth century, German medical scientist and Father
of Cellular Pathology, Rudolf Virchow, affirmed that “[e]verywhere there is mechanistic process only,
with the unbreakable necessity of cause and effect” (1858, p. 115, emp. added). Fast forwarding
another century, our increased understanding of the world still did not cause the law to be
discredited. In 1934, W.T. Stace, professor of philosophy at Princeton University, in A Critical History
of Greek Philosophy, wrote:

Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate canon of the sciences,
the foundation of them all. If we did not believe the truth of causation,
namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same
circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at
once crumble to dust. In every scientific investigation this truth is assumed
(p. 6, emp. added).

The truth of causality is so substantiated that it is taken for granted in scientific investigation. It is
“assumed.”

This principle is not some idea that can simply be brushed aside without consideration. If the Law of
Causality were not in effect, science could not proceed—it would “crumble to dust” since, by its very
nature, it involves gathering evidence and testing hypotheses in order to find regularities in nature.
The goal of scientific experimentation is to determine what will happen (i.e., what will be the effect)
if one does certain things (i.e., initiates certain causes). If there were no relationship between cause
and effect, then nothing could be taken for granted. One day gravity may be in effect, and the next day
it may not, and there would be no point in studying it, since it might be different tomorrow. There
would be no such thing as a “scientific law,” since there would be no such thing as a “regularity,”
which is fundamental to the definition of a law of science (McGraw-Hill Dictionary…, 2003, p. 1182).
Moving farther into the 20th century, the Law of Cause and Effect still had not been repealed. In 1949,
Albert Einstein, in The World as I See It, under the heading “The Religiousness of Science,” wrote, “But
the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation” (2007, p. 35, emp. added). In The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, renowned American philosopher and professor Richard Taylor wrote,
“Nevertheless, it is hardly disputable that the idea of causation is not only indispensable in the
common affairs of life but in all applied sciences as well” (1967, p. 57, emp. added).

Even today, when scientific exploration has brought us to unprecedented heights of knowledge, the
age old Law of Causality cannot be denied. Today’s dictionaries define “causality” as:

• “the principle that nothing can happen without being caused” (“Causality,” 2009).
• “the principle that everything has a cause” (“Causality,” 2008).

The National Academy of Science’s guidebook, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science,
says, “One goal of science is to understand nature. ‘Understanding’ in science means relating one
natural phenomenon to another and recognizing the causes and effects of phenomena…. Progress
in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena”
(1998, p. 42. emp. added). Notice that, according to the National Academy of Science (NAS), there can
be no progress in science without causality. The NAS, though entirely naturalistic in its approach to
science, recognizes causality to be fundamental to the nature of science. It is not, and cannot
rationally be, denied—except when necessary in order to prop up a deficient worldview. Its
ramifications have been argued for years, but after the dust settles, the Law of Cause and Effect still
stands unscathed, having weathered the trials thrust upon it for thousands of years.

THE LAW OF CAUSALITY—A PROBLEM FOR ATHEISM

The Law of Causality is fundamental to science, and yet it stands in the way of the bulk of today’s
scientific community due to their flawed definition of “science.” In an interview in 1994, the late,
famous evolutionary astronomer Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard
Institute for Space Studies at NASA, said:

As Einstein said, scientists live by their faith in causation, and the chain of
cause and effect. Every effect has a cause that can be discovered by rational
arguments. And this has been a very successful program, if you will, for
unraveling the history of the universe. But it just fails at the beginning…. So
time, really, going backward, comes to a halt at that point. Beyond that, that
curtain can never be lifted…. And that is really a blow at the very
fundamental premise that motivates all scientists (as quoted in Heeren,
1995, p. 303, emp. added).

The scientific community today, by and large, incorrectly defines “science” in such a way that
anything supernatural cannot be considered “scientific,” and therefore science “fails” in certain areas.
Only natural phenomena are deemed worthy of being categorized “science.” According to the
definition, if something cannot be empirically observed and tested, it is not “scientific.” [NOTE: The
naturalistic community contradicts itself on this matter, since several fundamental planks of
evolutionary theory are unnatural—they have never been observed and all scientific investigation
has proven them to be impossible (e.g., spontaneous generation of life and the laws of science,
macroevolution, etc.; cf. Miller, 2012b).] One result of this flawed definition is highlighted by Jastrow,
himself, in the above quote. Contrary to Jastrow’s statement, the laws of science, by definition, do not
“fail.” They have no known exceptions. So, it would be unscientific to claim, without conclusive
evidence in support of the claim, that a law has failed.

This leaves atheistic evolutionists in a quandary when trying to explain how the effect of the infinitely
complex Universe could have come about “unscientifically”—without a natural cause. Four decades
ago, Jastrow wrote:
The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of
time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known
cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild
events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to
banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know
(1977, p. 21).

When Jastrow says that there is no “known cause” for everything in the Universe, he is referring to
the fact that there is no known natural cause. If atheism were true, if the material realm is all that
exists, if naturalistic science can shed light on the matter of origins, there must be a natural
explanation of what caused the Universe. Scientists and philosophers recognize that there must be a
cause that would be sufficient to bring about matter and the Universe—and yet no natural cause is
known. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says that “causality,” in physics,
is “the principle that an event cannot precede its cause” (p. 346). However, the atheist must concede
that in order for his/her claim to be valid, the effect of the Universe did not precede its cause—rather,
it actually came about without it! Such a viewpoint is hardly in keeping with science.

THE LAW OF CAUSALITY—A FRIEND TO CREATIONISTS

Instead of flippantly disregarding the truth of the Law of Causality because it contradicts naturalistic
theories, why not recognize that the highly respected, exception-less Law of Causality is not the
problem? Why not recognize the fact that naturalistic theories, such as the Theory of Evolution and
the Big Bang Theory, are simply not in harmony with science on a fundamental level? Why not
consider an option that does not contradict the Law? If one were to follow the evidence wherever it
leads, rather than defining God out of science, one is led to the unavoidable conclusion that there
must be Someone super-natural that caused the Universe to be. If every material (i.e., natural) effect
must have a cause, then the ultimate Cause of the Universe must be supernatural.

Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. Notice that
creationists have absolutely no problem with the truth articulated by this God-ordained law from
antiquity. In Hebrews 3:4, the Bible says that “every house is built by someone, but He who built all
things is God.” A house must have a cause—namely, a builder. It will not build itself. Scientifically
speaking, according to the Law of Cause and Effect, there had to be a Cause for the Universe. And that
is the essence of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God.

The only book on the planet which contains characteristics that prove its production to be above
human capability is the Bible (see Butt, 2007). The God of the Bible is its author (2 Timothy 3:16-17),
and in the very first verse of the inspired material He gave to humans, He articulated with authority
and clarity that He is the Cause Who brought about the Universe and all that is in it. “In the beginning,
God created the heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Emile Borel was a famous French mathematician for whom the Borel lunar crater was named
(O’Connor and Robertson, 2008). He once said concerning the amazing human brain that is able to
author works of literature, “Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer
than the particular work to which it gave birth” (1963, p. 125). The effect of the brain’s existence, like
a work of literature, must have an adequate cause. In the same way, we know that the infinite Mind
behind the creation of this infinitely complex Universe had to be, and was, more than adequate for
the task of bringing it all into existence (Revelation 19:6).

UNCAUSED CAUSE?
"But if everything had to have a beginning, why does the same concept not apply to God? Doesn’t God
need a cause, too? Who caused God?” First, notice that this statement is based on a misunderstanding
of what the Law of Cause and Effect claims concerning the Universe. The law states that every
material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. A law of science is
determined through the observation of nature—not super-nature. Since they have not observed the
supernatural realm, scientists cannot apply the scientific Law of Causality to it. The laws of nature do
not apply to non-material entities. The God of the Bible is a spiritual Being (John 4:24) and therefore
is not governed by physical law. In the words of skeptic Michael Shermer, executive director of the
Skeptics Society and columnist for Scientific American:

If God is a being in space and time, it means that He is restrained by the laws
of nature and the contingencies of chance, just like all other beings of this
world. An omniscient and omnipotent God must be above such constraints,
not subject to nature and chance. God as creator of heaven and earth and all
things invisible would need necessarily to be outside such created objects
(2006, Ch. 8, emp. added).

Recall also what Professor W.T. Stace wrote in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy concerning
causality. “[E]verything which has a beginning has a cause” (p. 6, emp. added). God, according to the
Bible, had no beginning. Psalm 90:2 says concerning God, “Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God”
(emp. added). The Bible describes God as a Being Who has always been and always will be—“from
everlasting to everlasting.” He, therefore, had no beginning. Recall Hebrews 3:4 again, which
indicates that God is not constrained by the Law of Cause and Effect, as are houses, but rather,
presides as the Chief Builder—the Uncaused Causer—the Being Who initially set all effects into
motion (John 1:3).

Again, philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial cause of the Universe. [Those
who attempt to sidestep the need for a Cause and argue the eternality of the physical Universe are in
direct contradiction to the Law of Causality (since the Universe is a physical effect that demands a
cause), as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicates that nothing physical lasts
forever (see Miller, 2013).] Aristotle, in Physics, discussed the logical line of reasoning that leads to
the conclusion that the initial cause of motion must be something that is not, itself, in motion—an
unmoved mover (1984, 1:428). Aquinas built on Aristotle’s reasoning and said:

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another…. For motion is

nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality….
It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a
thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. If that
by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs
be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on
to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently no
other mover…. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to
which everyone gives the name of God (1952, 19:12,13, emp. added).

God, not being a physical, finite being, but an eternal, spiritual being (by definition), would not be
subject to the condition of requiring a beginning. Therefore, the law does not apply to Him.
Concerning the Law of Causality, Kant said that “everything which is contingent has a cause, which,
if itself contingent, must also have a cause; and so on, till the series of subordinated causes must end
with an absolutely necessary cause, without which it would not possess completeness” (2008, p.
284, emp. added). An uncaused Cause is necessary. Only God sufficiently fills that void.

Consider: in the same way that dimensional space—length, width, and height—are part of the
physical Universe, time, itself, is as well. In the same way that space had to have a cause, time itself
had to as well: time had a beginning. That means that its Creator logically could not have a beginning.
A “beginning” implies a specific timeframe that has begun. Without time in existence, there could be
no such thing as a “beginning.” So the Cause of the Universe could not have a beginning since He
created time, itself. In essence, there was no such thing as a “beginning” until the uncaused Cause
began something. [NOTE: If time was not created, then it exists apart from God and even God is
subject to it. The Bible affirms, however, that time itself was created along with the Universe when it
uses the phrase “in the beginning” in Genesis 1:1.]

Consider further: if there ever were a time in history when absolutely nothing existed—not even
God—then nothing would continue to exist today, since nothing comes from nothing (in keeping with
common sense and the First Law of Thermodynamics; Miller, 2013). However, we know something
exists (e.g., the Universe)—which means something had to exist eternally, or we would eventually
get to a point in past time when nothing existed, which we have already noted cannot be. That
something that existed forever could not be physical or material, since such things do not last forever
(cf. the Second Law of Thermodynamics; Miller, 2013). It follows that the eternal something must be
non-physical or non-material. It must be mind rather than matter. Logically, there must be a Mind
that has existed forever. That Mind, according to the Bible, is God. He, being spirit, is not subject to
the Second Law of Thermodynamics and can exist forever—the uncreated Creator. While usable
energy in the Universe is inevitably expended, according to the Second Law, moving the Universe
ever closer to a state of completed deterioration and unusable energy, God’s power is “eternal”
(Romans 1:20).

Of old You laid the foundation of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of
Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old
like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed.
But You are the same, and Your years will have no end (Psalm 102:25-27,
emp. added).

The Universe exists. It cannot be eternal according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It could
not create itself according to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Its existence requires an adequate,
supernatural Cause. The Bible calls Him Jehovah.

The proof of the contention – “The universe had a beginning” – goes in an acronym
labelled S.U.R.G.E. :

S – The Second Law of Thermodynamics

U – The Universe Is Expanding
R – Radiation from the Big Bang
G – Great Galaxy Seeds
E – Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity

S – The Second Law of Thermodynamics

▪ The law states that everything in the universe has a component of entropy
(i.e. – the universe is running out of usable energy). “Like a running car, the
universe will ultimately run out of gas.” This will result in what is called a
‘heat death’ where the temperature of everything is at absolute zero and will
be completely immobile (even at the atomic level). This shows that the
universe had a beginning because, if it were eternal, it would have run out of
gas by now.

U – The Universe Is Expanding

▪ The evidence holds that space is expanding and it’s causing everything to
move away from each other. This can be seen by looking at galaxies through
a telescope multiple times and notice that the light from them is changing
 frequencies. The light waves are becoming larger and larger every time we
look at them in what is called “Red Shift” (like how the sound waves of a car
changes as it drives further away from you). Working backwards, this shows
that the universe would have started from an infinitely small (basically zero)
point (known as a singularity).

R – Radiation from the Big Bang

▪ “Technically known as the cosmic background radiation, this afterglow is
actually light and heat from the initial explosion. This light is no longer
visible because its wavelength has been stretched by the expanding universe
to wavelengths slightly shorter than those produced by a microwave oven.
But the heat can still be detected.” Roger Penrose states that if you plot the
intensity against each frequency, you will find the Planck Curve (Black Body
Spectrum) which shows that the beginning of the universe must have been
in thermal equilibrium (a state in which energy is most random; and has the
least reason to begin by itself).
[This “evidence for the Big Bang” is in dispute by YEC’s D. Russell
Humphreys and Jason Lisle. Brian Thomas points out that, “Another problem
with the Big Bang is the horizon problem, which is the question of why
temperature is so remarkably uniform throughout the universe when light
has not had enough time since the Big Bang to travel throughout space and
evenly distribute radiation. Also, the Big Bang should have resulted in equal
amounts of matter and antimatter, but the real universe is dominated by
matter.”

G – Great Galaxy Seeds

▪ “If the Big Bang actually occurred, scientists believed that we should see
slight variations (or ripples) in the temperature of the cosmic background
radiation [. . .]. These temperature ripples enabled matter to congregate by
gravitational attraction into galaxies. If found, they would comprise the
fourth line of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning. [. . .] The
ripples show that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely
tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy
formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself.”

E – Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity

▪ “The theory itself, which has been verified to five decimal places, demands
an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter.” It shows that time, space,
and matter are co-relative. That is, they are interdependent–you can’t have
one without the others. Matter couldn’t exist timelessly as thought before by
Greek philosophers; they all came into existed (were created) at once.
 The Moral Argument For the Existence of God
In November 2006, several of the world’s leading atheistic evolutionary scientists gathered in La
Jolla, California for the first “Beyond Belief” symposium (see Lyons and Butt, 2007), which the
scientific journal New Scientist called “an ‘atheist love fest’” (Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7). The
conference was held to discuss science, religion, and God, and specifically whether science should “do
away with religion” (Brooks, 2006, 192[2578]:9). New Scientist writer Michael Brooks summarized
the overall attitude of the attendees in the following words: “science can take on religion and win” (p.
11). The participants were ready to roll up their sleeves and “get on with it” (p. 11). They were ready
to put science “In Place of God,” as Brooks titled his article.

Fast-forward one year to 2007—to the “Beyond Belief II” symposium—where some of the
participants apparently approached the idea of a Supernatural Being much more cautiously. Even
New Scientist, who covered the conference for a second year in a row, chose a drastically different
article title the second time around—from “In Place of God” to the more sober, “God’s Place in a
Rational World” (see Reilly, 196[2629]:7, emp. added). Author Michael Reilly gave some insight into
the meeting by recording what one attendee, Edward Slingerland of the University of British
Columbia (and founder of the Centre for the Study of Human Evolution, Cognition and Culture),
openly acknowledged.

“Religion is not going away,” he announced. Even those of us who fancy ourselves
rationalists and scientists, he said, rely on moral values—a set of distinctly
unscientific beliefs.

Where, for instance, does our conviction that human rights are universal come from?
“Humans’ rights to me are as mysterious as the holy trinity.... You can’t do a CT scan
to show where humans’ rights are, you can’t cut someone open and show us their
human rights.... It’s not an empirical thing, it’s just something we strongly believe.
It’s a purely metaphysical entity” (p. 7, emp. added).

Although some at the conference had the naïve belief that “[g]iven time and persistence, science will
conquer all of nature’s mysteries” (Reilly, p. 7, emp. added), it is encouraging to know that at least
one person alluded to one of the greatest proofs for God’s existence—the moral argument.

OBJECTIVE MORALITY
Why do most rational people believe in objective morality? That is, why do people generally think
that some actions are “right” and some actions are “wrong,” regardless of people’s subjective
opinions? Why do most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for someone to walk into a
random house, shoot everyone in it, and steal everything in sight? (2) for a man to beat and rape a
kind, innocent woman? (3) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? or (4) for
parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of their lives?
Because, as evolutionist Edward Slingerland noted, humans have metaphysical rights—rights that are
“a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses” (“Metaphysical,” 2011)—and “rely on moral
values.” The fact is, most people, even many atheists, have admitted that real, objective good and evil
exist.

Antony Flew

During the last half of the 20th century, Dr. Antony Flew, Professor of Philosophy at the University of
Reading in Reading, England, was considered one of the world’s most well known atheistic
philosophers. From 1955-2000, he lectured and wrote extensively on matters pertaining to atheism.
Some of his works include, but in no way are limited to, God and Philosophy (1966), Evolutionary
Ethics (1967), Darwinian Evolution (1984), The Presumption of Atheism (1976), and Atheistic
Humanism (1993). In September 1976, Dr. Flew debated Dr. Thomas B. Warren, Professor of
Philosophy of Religion and Christian Apologetics at Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis,
Tennessee. Prior to this four-night debate on the existence of God, Warren, in agreement with the
rules of the debate, asked Flew several questions in writing, including the following: “True/False. In
murdering six million Jewish men, women, and children the Nazis were guilty of real (objective)
moral wrong.” Flew answered “True.” He acknowledged the existence of “real (objective) moral
wrong” (Warren and Flew, 1977, p. 248). [NOTE: In 2004, Flew started taking steps toward theism as
he acknowledged the impossibility of a purely naturalistic explanation for life. See Miller, 2004 for
more information.]

Wallace Matson

In 1978, Dr. Warren met Dr. Wallace Matson, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California in
Berkeley, California, in a public debate on the existence of God in Tampa, Florida. Once again, per the
agreed-upon guidelines, the disputants were allowed to ask up to 10 questions prior to their debate.
Once more, Warren asked: “True/False. In murdering six million Jewish men, women, and children
the Nazis were guilty of real (objective) moral wrong.” Like Flew, Matson answered “True:” “real
(objective) moral wrong” exists (Warren and Matson, 1978, p. 353). Matson even acknowledged in
the affirmative (i.e., “true”) that “[i]f you had been a soldier during World War II and if the Nazis (1)
had captured you and (2) had given you the choice of either joining them in their efforts to
exterminate the Jews or being murdered, you would have had the objective moral obligation to die
rather than to join them in the murder of Jewish men, women, and children” (p. 353, underline in
orig.). Do not miss the point: Matson not only said that the Nazis were guilty of objective moral
wrong, he even indicated that a person would have the “objective moral obligation to die” rather
than join up with the murderous Nazi regime.

As Easy as 2 + 2

Although objective morality may be outside the realm of the scientific method, every rational person
can know that some things are innately good, while other things are innately evil. Antony Flew and
Wallace Matson, two of the leading atheistic philosophers of the 20 th century, forthrightly
acknowledged the existence of objective morality. Though at times atheist Michael Ruse has seemed
opposed to the idea of moral objectivity (see Ruse, 1989, p. 268), evenhe admitted in his book
Darwinism Defended that “[t]he man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children, is
just asmistaken as the man who says that 2 + 2 = 5” (1982, p. 275, emp. added). Indeed, one of the
many reasons that “religion (i.e., God—EL) is not going away,” to use Edward Slingerland’s words, is
because moral values are a metaphysical reality (cf. Romans 2:14-15). Philosophers Francis Beckwith
and Gregory Koukl said it well: “Those who deny obvious moral rules—who say that murder and
rape are morally benign, that cruelty is not a vice, and that cowardice is a virtue—do not merely have
a different moral point of view; theyhave something wrong with them” (1998, p. 59, emp. added).

THE MORAL ARGUMENT

The moral argument for the existence of God has been stated in a variety of ways through the
centuries. One way in which the basic argument has been worded is as follows (see Craig, n.d.; Craig
and Tooley, 1994; Cowan, 2005, p. 166):

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.

Conclusion: God exists.

Thomas B. Warren worded the argument in a positive, more detailed manner in his debates with
atheist Antony Flew (p. 173) and Wallace Matson (p. 285).
 1. If the moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism
(as to real moral wrong), then there must be some objective standard (some “higher law which
transcends the provincial and transient”) which is other than the particular moral code and
which has an obligatory character which can be recognized.
2. The moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism
(as to real moral wrong).
3. Therefore, there must be some objective standard (some “higher law which transcends the
provincial and transient”) which is other than the particular moral code and which has an
obligatory character which can be recognized.

The “society” that Warren used as a case study in his debates was Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime. In the
1930s and 40s, Nazi Germany committed state-sponsored genocide of so-called “inferior races.” Of
the approximately nine million Jews who lived in Europe at the beginning of the 1930s, some six
million of them were exterminated. The Nazis murdered approximately one million Jewish children,
two million Jewish women, and three million Jewish men. The Nazis herded them into railway cars
like cattle, shipping them to concentration camps. Sometimes the floors of the railway cars were
layered with quicklime, which would burn the feet of the prisoners, including the children. The Jews
were starved, gassed, and experimented on like animals. Hitler slaughtered another three million
Poles, Soviets, gypsies, and people with disabilities (see “Holocaust,” 2011 for more information).

So were the Nazis guilty of “real (objective) moral wrong”? According to atheist Antony Flew, they
were (Warren and Flew, p. 248). Atheist Wallace Matson agreed (Warren and Matson, p. 353).
Whether theist or atheist, most rational people admit that some things really are atrocious. People do
not merely feel like rape and child abuse may be wrong; they are wrong—innately wrong. Just as two
plus two can really be known to be four, every rational human can know that some things are
objectively good, while other things are objectively evil. However, reason demands that objective
good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective point of reference. If something (e.g., rape)
“can properly be the subject of criticism (as to real moral wrong) then there must be some objective
standard (some ‘higher law which transcends the provincial and transient’) which is other than the
particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized” (Warren and
Matson, p. 284, emp. added).

DOES ATHEISM PROVIDE A LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVE STANDARD

FOR MORALITY?
Recognition by atheists of anything being morally wrong begs the question: How can an
atheistlogically call something atrocious, deplorable, evil, or wicked? According to atheism, man is
nothing but matter in motion. Humankind allegedly evolved from rocks and slime over billions of
years. But who ever speaks of “wrong rocks,” “moral minerals,” “corrupt chemicals,” or “sinful slime?”
People do not talk about morally depraved donkeys, evil elephants, or immoral monkeys. Pigs are not
punished for being immoral when they eat their young. Komodo dragons are not corrupt because
10% of their diet consists of younger Komodo dragons. Killer whales are not guilty of murder. Black
widows are not exterminated simply because the female often kills the male after copulation. Male
animals are not tried for rape if they appear to forcibly copulate with females (cf. Thornhill, 2001).
Dogs are not depraved for stealing the bone of another dog.

The fact that humans even contemplate morality testifies to the huge chasm between man and
animals. Atheistic evolutionists have admitted that morals arise only in humans. According to Antony
Flew, man is a moral being, yet “value did not exist before the first human being” (Warren and Flew,
p. 248). Flew believed that morals came into existence only after man evolved, not beforehand when
allegedly only animals existed on Earth. Though George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most recognized
atheistic evolutionists of the 20th century, believed that “man is the result of a purposeless and
materialistic process that did not have him in mind,” he confessed that “[g]ood and evil, right and
wrong, concepts irrelevant in nature except from the human viewpoint, become real and
pressing features of the whole cosmos as viewed morally because morals arise only in man” (1951,
p. 179, emp. added). Atheists admit that people (i.e., even “atheists”) have “their own innate sense of
morality” (“Do Atheists…?, n.d.). No rational person makes such admissions about animals. As
evolutionist Edward Slingerland stated, “Humans,” not animals, “rely on moral values” (as quoted in
Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7).

Atheistic evolution cannot logically explain morals. Real, objective moral right or wrong cannot exist
if humans are the offspring of animals. Young people (who are not allowed to act like animals at
school) are frequently “reminded” in public school textbooks that they are the offspring of animals.
According to one Earth science textbook, “Humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more
than 4 billion years ago” (Earth Science, 1989, p. 356).

When I graduated from high school in 1994, millions of public high school students in America were
introduced to a new biology textbook by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. What sort of amazing things did
they learn? For one, they were informed, “You are an animal and share a common heritage with
earthworms” (Johnson, 1994, p. 453, emp. added). Allegedly, man not only descended from fish and
four-footed beasts, we are beasts. Charles Darwin declared in chapter two of his book The Descent of
Man: “My object in this chapter is solely to show that there is no fundamental difference between
man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties” (1871, 1:34). More recently, evolutionary
environmentalist David Suzuki was interviewed by Jo Marchant of New Scientist magazine. Suzuki
proclaimed: “[W]e must acknowledge that we are animals.... We like to think of ourselves as elevated
above other creatures. But the human body evolved” from animals (as quoted in Marchant, 2008,
200[2678]:44, emp. added). One has to look no further than Marchant’s title to know his view of
humanity. Allegedly, “We Should Act Like the Animals We Are” (p. 44, emp. added). The fact is, as
Thomas B. Warren concluded in his debate with Antony Flew, “[T]he basic implication of the atheistic
system does not allow objective moral right or objective moral wrong” (1977, p. 49).

ATHEISM: CONTRADICTORY AT BEST, HIDEOUS AT WORST

Atheists cannot logically condemn the Nazis for objective moral evil, while simultaneously saying that
we arose from rocks and rodents. They cannot reasonably rebuke a child molester for being immoral,
while at the same time believing that we evolved from slime. Reason demands that objective good
and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective reference point. As Warren stated: “[T]here
must be some objective standard (some “higher law which transcends the provincial and transient”)
which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be
recognized” (Warren and Matson, p. 284).

Atheists find themselves in a conundrum: (1) They must admit to objective morality (which
ultimately means that a moral lawgiver, i.e., God, Who is above and beyond the provincial and the
transient, exists); or, (2) They must contend that everything is relative—that no action on Earth
could ever be objectively good or evil. Rather, everything is subjective and situational.

Relatively few atheists seem to have had the courage (or audacity) to say forthrightly that atheism
implies that objective good and evil do not exist. However, a few have. Some of the leading atheists
and agnostics in the world, in fact, understand that if there is no God, then there can be no ultimate,
binding standard of morality for humanity. Charles Darwin understood perfectly the moral
implications of atheism, which is one reason he gave for being “content to remain an Agnostic” (1958,
p. 94). In his autobiography, he wrote: “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the
existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his
rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the
strongest or which seem to him the best ones” (1958, p. 94, emp. added). If a person has the urge
to suffocate innocent children, like a snake may suffocate its victims (including people), then, if there
is no God, there is no objective moral law against suffocating children. If a person impulsively drowns
a kind elderly person, similar to a crocodile drowning its prey, then, if atheism is true, this action
could neither be regarded as objectively good or evil.

According to Richard Dawkins, one of the early 21st century’s most famous atheists, “[L]ife has no
higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA” (1995, 273[5]:80):
So long as DNA is passed on, it does not matter who or what gets hurt in the
process. Genes don’t care about suffering, because they don’t care about anything….
DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music…. This
universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at
bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless
indifference (p. 85, emp. added).

Although Dawkins could never prove that life’s sole purpose is to perpetuate DNA, he is right about
one thing: if there is no God, then there is no good and no evil, only “pitiless indifference.” “It does not
matter” to atheistic evolution “who or what gets hurt.”

Like Darwin and Dawkins, atheistic evolutionary biologist William Provine implicitly acknowledged
the truthfulness of the first premise of the moral argument as stated by philosophers Craig and
Cowan (“If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist”). In 1988, Provine penned an
article for The Scientist titled, “Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible” (2[16]:10).
Although true science and Christianity live in perfect harmony with each other, Provine, in so far as
he was referring to evolutionary science and its implications, was exactly right: evolutionary science
and religion are incompatible. According to Provine,

No purposive principles exist in nature. Organic evolution has occurred by various

combinations of random genetic drift, natural selection, Mendelian heredity, and
many other purposeless mechanisms. Humans are complex organic machines that
die completely with no survival of soul or psyche. Humans and other animals make
choices frequently, but these are determined by the interaction of heredity and
environment and are not the result of free will. No inherent moral or ethical laws
exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The
universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life (1988, p.
10, emp. added).

Provine went on in the article to accuse evolutionists who fail to take their theory to its logical
conclusion of suffering from the “trying to have one’s cake and eat it, too” syndrome. He supposed
that they may be acting out of fear or wishful thinking or may just be intellectually dishonest. Why?
Because they do not boldly admit what he does: atheistic evolution is true. Therefore, “No inherent
moral or ethical laws exist.”

Atheistic philosopher Jean Paul Sartre summarized atheism well in a lecture he gave in 1946 titled
“Existentialism is a Humanism.” Sartre stated, “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not
exist…. [H]e cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself ” (1989, emp.
added). “If God does not exist,” Sartre recognized that we have no “values or commands that could
legitimise our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of
values, any means of justification or excuse” (1989).

Though few they may be, atheists such as Provine, Sartre, and others refuse to walk down the road of
contradiction. That is, rather than deny the premise: “If God does not exist, then objective moral
values do not exist,” they acknowledge it: “[e]verything is indeed permitted if God does not exist”
(Sartre, 1989). Yet, if atheists refuse to admit that real moral objectivity exists, then they are forced to
admit that, for example, when the Jews were starved, gassed, and experimented on “like the animals”
they reportedly were (cf. Marchant, 2008), the Nazis did nothing inherently wrong. They were, to
borrow from Provine, merely complex organic, meaningless mechanisms that chose to follow the
orders of the Fuhrer. Or, to apply Dawkins reasoning, how could Hitler be guilty of wrong doing if he
was simply trying to perpetuate the survival of the “best” DNA possible? “[I]t does not matter who or
what gets hurt in the process,” right? “So long as DNA is passed on” (Dawkins, 273[5]:85). Should we
not just react with “pitiless indifference” since atheism implies that objective good and evil do not
exist (p. 85)?
What about most of humanity’s condemnation of rape as an objective moral evil? Is it really an
inherently evil act? Although evolutionist Randy Thornhill, co-author of the book A Natural History of
Rape, “would like to see rape eradicated from human life” (Thornhill and Palmer, 2000, p. xi), he
touted in a 2001 speech he delivered in Vancouver that rape is actually “evolutionary, biological and
natural…. Our male ancestors became ancestors in part because they conditionally used rape” (2001).
According to Thornhill and Palmer, “Evolutionary theory applies to rape, as it does to other areas of
human affairs, on both logical and evidentiary grounds. There is no legitimate scientific reason not to
apply evolutionary or ultimate hypotheses to rape…. Human rape arises from men’s evolved
machinery for obtaining a high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates”
(2000, pp. 55,190). If God does not exist, and if man evolved from lower life forms, in part because
they “conditionally used rape,” then even rape cannot be called an objective moral evil. In fact, that is
exactly what atheist Dan Barker admitted.

In his 2005 debate with Peter Payne on Does Ethics Require God?, Barker stated: “All actions are
situational. There is not an action that is right or wrong. I can think of an exception in any case”
(emp. added). Four years later, Kyle Butt asked Barker in their debate on the existence of God, “When
would rape be acceptable?” (2009, p. 33). Although Barker tried to make his response as palatable as
possible, he ultimately admitted that rape would be permissible if, for example, it meant saving
humanity from certain destruction (pp. 33-34). [NOTE: One wonders how Barker can logically say
that no actions are right or wrong, but then claim that situation ethics is right? Such a claim is a self-
defeating statement. “Nothing is right. But situation ethics is right!?” Furthermore, on what basis does
Barker think it is “right” to save humanity? His entire answer ultimately contradicts his already
contradictory contentions.] Barker went on to admit (and even disturbingly joke) that it would be
acceptable to rape two, two thousand, or even two million women, if, say, it resulted in saving six
billion people from hypothetical alien invaders (p. 34). [NOTE: Alien invaders are not really all that
imaginary in the world of atheism. After all, since life supposedly evolved on Earth, according to
atheistic evolutionists it had to have also evolved in one form or another on some other distant
planets in the Universe.] Do not miss the point. Dan Barker admitted that rape would be acceptable
given certain circumstances. One obvious question is: who gets to decide the circumstances that
warrant the rape of innocent women? Who is Barker to say that a man would be wrong to rape a
woman for revenge, say, because she crashed into his new car? Or, who is Barker to say that it would
be wrong to rape a woman for stealing $1,000 from him, etc. The fact is, once Barker (or any atheist)
alleges that (1) God does not exist, and (2) therefore, “[n]o inherent moral or ethical laws exist”
(Provine, 1988, 2[16]:10; a logical deduction if God does not exist), then no one can logically be
criticized for anything. As Sartre put it: “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist” (1989).
Rape, child abuse, multiple murder, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. cannot be condemned as objective evil,
if God does not exist.

What happens when atheistic evolutionists take their godless philosophy to its logical conclusion, at
least theoretically? They unveil the true, hideous nature of atheism. Consider, for example, the
comments evolutionary ecologist Eric Pianka made in 2006 in Beaumont, Texas where he was
recognized as the Distinguished Texas Scientist of the Year. According to Forrest M. Mimms, III,
Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science, Pianka condemned
“the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe” and “hammered his point
home by exclaiming, ‘We’re no better than bacteria!’” (Mims, 2006). Pianka followed up this comment
by expressing his concerns “about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth” (Mims).
According to Mims,

Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and
without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to
saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.... His favorite
candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston),
because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years (2006; for more information, see
Butt, 2008, 28[7]:51-52).

Although most people (a good 90% anyway) find Pianka’s suggestion appalling, if atheism is true, and
humanity really “evolved from bacteria” (Earth Science, 1989, p. 356), there would be nothing
inherently wrong for a man to attempt to murder billions of people, especially if he is doing it for a
“good” reason (i.e., to save the only planet in the Universe on which we know for sure life exists).
[NOTE: Again, such a reason that is deemed “good” can only exist if God does.]

CONCLUSION
The moral argument for God’s existence exposes atheism as the self-contradictory, atrocious
philosophy that it is. Atheists must either reject the truthfulness of the moral argument’s first
premise (“If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist”) and illogically accept the
indefensible idea that objective morality somehow arose from rocks and reptiles, or (2) they must
reject the argument’s second premise (“Objective moral values exist”), and accept the insane, utterly
repulsive idea that genocide, rape, murder, theft, child abuse, etc. can never once be condemned as
objectively “wrong.” According to atheism, individuals who commit such actions are merely doing
what their DNA led them to do. They are simply following through with their raw impulses and
instincts, which allegedly evolved from our animal ancestors. What’s more, if atheism is true,
individuals could never logically be punished for such immoral actions, since “no inherent moral or
ethical laws exist” (Provine, 1988, p. 10).

For those who refuse to have God in their knowledge (Romans 1:28), life will forever be filled with
the self-contradictory, unreasonable, inhumane lies of atheistic evolution. Indeed, “The fool has said
in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1a). When atheists actually follow through with their
godless philosophy and let it complete its journey of indifference, they peel back the phony charming
façade of atheism and reveal it for what the psalmist said that it actually is: corrupt and abominable,
where no one does good (Psalm 14:1b). On the other hand, when theists follow the evidence to the
Creator (cf. Psalm 19:1-4), they discover a benevolent God Who is good (Psalm 100:5; Mark 10:18)
and Who demands that His obedient followers “do good to all” (Galatians 6:10).
 Atheist Design Admissions

Atheistic philosopher Paul Ricci summed up the Teleological Argument for the Existence of God well
when he said, “[I]t’s true that everything designed has a designer…. ‘Everything designed has a
designer’ is an analytically true statement.”1 There are an infinite number of design examples that
present themselves to us when we study the natural realm—a problem for Ricci and his atheistic
colleagues, to be sure. We have documented dozens of such examples in the past (see the various
“Design” topics in the “Existence of God” category on our Web site), but consider the following
points in addition to those examples of design. It is one thing for theists to provide positive
evidences for the existence of design in the Universe, but it makes the job much simpler for theists
when naturalists themselves admit evidences for design. Here are five areas of science where
scientists openly acknowledge design in nature.

#1: “We Need to Figure Out Who Wrote the Laws of Science.”

Famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking,
clearly highly reveres the laws of science. In 2011, he hosted a show on Discovery Channel titled,
“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” In that show, he said,

[T]he Universe is a machine governed by principles or laws—laws that can be understood by the
human mind. I believe that the discovery of these laws has been humankind’s greatest
achievement…. But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being
unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a
planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot
ever be broken. That’s why they are so powerful.2

Hawking, in obvious awe, acknowledges that the laws of nature exist, are unbreakable (i.e., without
exception), and apply to the entire Universe—not just to the Earth. But that admission by the
evolutionary community presents a major problem for atheism. Humanist Martin Gardner said,

Imagine that physicists finally discover all the basic waves and their particles, and all the basic laws,
and unite everything in one equation. We can then ask, “Why that equation?” It is fashionable now
to conjecture that the big bang was caused by a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum devoid of
space and time. But of course such a vacuum is a far cry from nothing. There had to be quantum
laws to fluctuate. And why are there quantum laws?...There is no escape from the superultimate
questions: Why is there something rather than nothing, and why is the something structured the
way it is?3

Even if Big Bang cosmology were correct (and it is not), you still can’t have a law without a law
writer.

In “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” Hawking boldly claimed that everything in the Universe
can be accounted for through science without the need of God. This is untrue, as we have discussed
elsewhere,4 but notice that Hawking does not even believe that assertion himself. He said, “Did God
create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur? In a nutshell, did we need a god to set
it all up so that the Big Bang could bang?”5 He provided no answer to that crucial question—not
even an attempt. And he is not alone. No atheist can provide a reasonable answer to that question.

The eminent atheistic, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State
University, Paul Davies, noted Hawking’s sidestep of that question in the “round table discussion” on
the Discovery Channel following “Curiosity,” titled, “The Creation Question: a Curiosity
Conversation.” Concerning Hawking, Davies said,

In the show, Stephen Hawking gets very, very close to saying, “Well, where did the laws of physics
come from? That’s where we might find some sort of God.” And then he backs away and doesn’t
return to the subject…. You need to know where those laws come from. That’s where the mystery
lies—the laws.6

Writing in New Scientist, Davies asked, “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own
software...?”7 In a more extensive discourse on the subject in The New York Times, Davies said,

[W]here do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do? When I was a
student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were
told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were
treated as “given”—imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth—
and fixed forevermore.... Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of
physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody
knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are—they just are.” The idea
that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific
explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons
things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality—the
laws of physics—only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science. Can the
mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless
absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity
somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality.... Clearly, then, both religion and science
are founded on faith—namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an
unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws.8

In conclusion, Davies highlighted the fact that naturalists have a blind faith when assuming that the
laws of science could create themselves free from an “external agency”: “[U]ntil science comes up
with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.”9
Bottom line: there must be a rational origin of the laws of science. In 2016, Davies reiterated, “The
ballyhoo about a universe popping out of the vacuum is a complete red herring. It just dodges the
real issue, which is the prior existence of the laws of physics.”10 In an article titled “Taking Science
on Faith,” Davies responded to the assertion that the existence of a multiverse could account for the
origin of the laws of science, saying,

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as
dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and
bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come
from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-
laws of the multiverse.11

Astrophysicist and science writer for New Scientist, Marcus Chown, wrote:
If the universe owes its origins to quantum theory, then quantum theory must have existed before
the universe. So the next question is surely: where did the laws of quantum theory come from? “We
do not know,” admits [cosmologist Alex—JM] Vilenkin. “I consider that an entirely different
question.” When it comes to the beginning of the universe, in many ways we’re still at the
beginning.12

University of Oxford physicist David Deutsch said, “Even if the answer to why there is something
rather than nothing were because of how quantum field theory works, the question would become
why are the laws of quantum field theory as they are.”13 Cosmologist and Professor of Physics at
California Institute of Technology Sean Carroll, writing in Scientific American, discussed the question
of the origin of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “[E]xplaining why low-entropy states evolve
into high-entropy states [i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics—JM] is different from explaining
why entropy is increasing in our universe.... [T]he real challenge is not to explain why the entropy of
the universe will be higher tomorrow than it is today but to explain why the entropy was lower
yesterday and even lower the day before that.”14 In other words, why is there such a thing as a law
of nature, like the “Second Law of Thermodynamics”?

Theoretical physicist, faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and adjunct
Professor of Physics at the University of Waterloo, Lee Smolin, admitted, “Cosmology has new
questions to answer. Not just what are the laws, but why are these laws the laws?”15 In a 2014
interview with Scientific American, cosmologist George F.R. Ellis of the University of Cape Town, co-
author with Stephen Hawking of the book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, gave a stinging
response to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University, who argues in his
book, A Universe from Nothing, that physics has ultimately answered the question of why there is
something rather than nothing. Among other criticisms, Ellis said,

And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they
have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must
believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry
principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to
answer these questions.16

Quantum physicist Michael Brooks agreed with Ellis in his criticisms of Krauss’ book. Writing in New
Scientist, he said, “[T]he laws of physics can’t be conjured from nothing.... Krauss contends that the
multiverse makes the question of what determined our laws of nature ‘less significant.’ Truthfully, it
just puts the question beyond science [i.e., beyond the natural—JM]—for now, at least.”17

In his book, The Grand Design, Hawking tried to submit a way that the Universe could have created
itself from nothing without God and still be in keeping with the laws of nature—an impossible
concept, to be sure. He said, “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create
itself from nothing.”18 Of course, even if such were possible, he does not explain where the law of
gravity came from. Professor of mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of
Science at Oxford University John Lennox concurred. He took Hawking to task over his assertion that
the laws of physics alone can explain the existence of the Universe, saying,

Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means
the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it
there? And what was the creative force behind its birth? Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support
of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for “the blue touch paper” to be lit
to “set the universe going,” the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And
who lit it, if not God?19

Simply put, a more rational statement from Hawking would have been, “Because there is a law like
gravity, the Universe must have been created by God.” Bottom line: the existence of the laws of
science is evidence of a Designer—even atheists tacitly admit it.

#2: “We Need to Know Who Created Life.”

In Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, well-known British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins,

Oxford University’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 to 2008, said
concerning the possibility of intelligent design:

It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the Universe, a civilization evolved by, probably,
some kind of Darwinian means, to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life
that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility.
And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that, if you look at the details of our
chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some kind of designer. And that designer
could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe.20

So, according to Dawkins, when we look at our chemistry—our molecular biology—(1) there could
be evidence of design there, and (2) that design would imply the existence of a designer—a direct
admission of the validity of the Teleological Argument. Granted, Dawkins does not directly endorse
God as that Designer. Instead, he irrationally postulates the existence of aliens.

Ultimately, since there is no evidence for the existence of aliens, there can hardly be any evidence
for their establishing life on Earth. Such an idea can hardly be in keeping with the evolutionist’s own
beliefs about the importance of direct observation and experiment in science. Such a theory does
nothing but tacitly admit (1) the truth of the Law of Biogenesis—in nature, life comes only from life
(in this case, aliens); and (2) the necessity of a creator/designer in the equation.

However, notice: since aliens are beings of nature, they too must be governed by the laws of nature.
Recall Hawking’s claim: the laws of physics “are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball,
but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe.”21 Evolutionary physicist Victor
Stenger submitted his belief that the “basic laws” of science “hold true in the most distant observed
galaxy and in the cosmic microwave background, implying that these laws have been valid for over
thirteen billion years.”22 In the interview with Stein, Dawkins went on to say concerning the
supposed alien creators, “But that higher intelligence would, itself, had to have come about by some
ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously.”23 So, the
alien creators, according to Dawkins, have been strapped with the laws of nature as well. Thus, the
problem of abiogenesis is merely shifted to the alien’s abode, where the question of the origin of life
must still be answered.

Bottom line: life is evidence of design, and by implication, an intelligent designer. Writing in New
Scientist, Dawkins admitted, “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe
that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent
Designer.”24 Sadly, the atheist simply cannot bring himself to accept the clear cut, “obvious
alternative” that is staring him in the face.

#3: “We Have to Figure Out a Way to Explain All of This Design in Nature.”
George Ellis and Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Joseph Silk, wrote
in 2014 in Nature: “This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties
in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in
how theoretical physics is done.”25 Ironically, the “difficulties” theoretical physicists have
encountered have become considerable enough that going beyond nature is necessary. According to
cosmologist Bernard Carr of Queen Mary University in London, a supernatural option of some sort is
demanded. He warned cosmologists to accept the inevitable implications of the evidence: “If you
don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”26 The multiverse has, therefore, been latched
onto by many naturalists to try to explain away the “difficulties” facing physicists without resorting
to God, even though, among other issues with it, there is absolutely no evidence for its existence.27
Lee Smolin said, “We had to invent the multiverse,”28 and according to Lawson Parker, writing in
National Geographic, it was from our “imagination.”29 The use of our imagination to determine
where we came from certainly sounds like today’s “science” is moving ever further into the realm of
fiction.

Regardless, notice that according to many physicists, something beyond the current definition of
science is needed to explain certain things—i.e., the existence of the unobservable, supernatural
realm is demanded by the evidence. Recall how Davies put it: “Clearly, then, both religion and
science are founded on faith—namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe,
like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of
unseen universes, too.”30

Besides the existence of the laws of physics, what kind of “difficulties” are physicists encountering
that are forcing them to conclude that something outside of the Universe exists, and therefore, that
they need to “invent” the multiverse to avoid God? Many have articulated well the problem. Read
on to see a great lesson by naturalists on the need for a supernatural Designer for the Universe.

According to Tim Folger, writing in Discover magazine, “The idea that the universe was made just for
us—known as the anthropic principle—debuted in 1973.”31 Since then, the mountain of evidence
supporting the principle has drastically grown in elevation. Consider, for example:

• In a 2011 article, under the heading “Seven Questionable Arguments” for the multiverse,
Ellis discussed argument number four: “A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical
constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things….
I agree that the multiverse is a possible valid explanation for [fine tuning examples—JM]…; arguably,
it is the only scientifically based option we have right now. But we have no hope of testing it
observationally.”32 [Notice that the multiverse is “the only scientifically based option,” and yet “we
have no hope of testing it observationally.” Doesn’t that make it not a “scientifically based option”?]

• By 2014, Ellis and Silk went even further:

The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of nature, such as the fine-
structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles
and the cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe,
have values that lie in the small range that allows life to exist…. Some physicists consider that the
multiverse has no challenger as an explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low
value of the cosmological constant—known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than the value predicted
by quantum field theory—is difficult to explain, for instance.33

• John Rennie, the editor for Scientific American, noted, “The basic laws of physics work
equally well forward or backward in time, yet we perceive time to move in one direction only—
toward the future. Why?”34 Carroll, along the same lines, noted that “[i]f the observable universe
were all that existed, it would be nearly impossible to account for the arrow of time in a natural
way.”35

• According to Smolin,

Everything we know suggests that the universe is unusual. It is flatter, smoother, larger and emptier
than a “typical” universe predicted by the known laws of physics. If we reached into a hat filled with
pieces of paper, each with the specifications of a possible universe written on it, it is exceedingly
unlikely that we would get a universe anything like ours in one pick—or even a billion. The challenge
that cosmologists face is to make sense of this specialness. One approach to this question is
inflation—the hypothesis that the early universe went through a phase of exponentially fast
expansion. At first, inflation seemed to do the trick. A simple version of the idea gave correct
predictions for the spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. But a closer look
shows that we have just moved the problem further back in time. To make inflation happen at all
requires us to fine-tune the initial conditions of the universe.36

• Folger quotes Linde in Discover magazine:

“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they
make life possible,” Linde says. Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that
life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that
very idea…. Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of
invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may
be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse…. Advocates
argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non-religious explanation for
what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the
universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life…. [Andrei Linde:] “And if we double
the mass of the electron, life as we know it will disappear. If we change the strength of the
interaction between protons and electrons, life will disappear. Why are there three space
dimensions and one time dimension? If we had four space dimensions and one time dimension, then
planetary systems would be unstable and our version of life would be impossible. If we had two
space dimensions and one time dimension, we would not exist,” he says…. [I]f there is no multiverse,
where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have
a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”37

• Stuart Clark and Richard Webb, writing in New Scientist, said,

We can’t explain the numbers that rule the universe…the different strengths of weak, strong and
electromagnetic forces, for example, or the masses of the particles it introduces…. Were any of them
to have even marginally different values, the universe would look very different. The Higgs boson’s
mass, for example, is just about the smallest it can be without the universe’s matter becoming
unstable. Similar “fine-tuning” problems bedevil cosmology…. Why is the carbon atom structured so
precisely as to allow enough carbon for life to exist in the universe?38

• Greene, commenting on Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard

Susskind’s thinking about the multiverse, said,

Susskind was suggesting that string theory augments this grand cosmological unfolding by adorning
each of the universes in the multiverse with a different shape for the extra dimensions. With or
without string theory, the multiverse is a highly controversial schema, and deservedly so. It not only
recasts the landscape of reality, but shifts the scientific goal posts. Questions once deemed
profoundly puzzling—why do nature’s numbers, from particle masses to force strengths to the
energy suffusing space, have the particular values they do?—would be answered with a shrug….
Most physicists, string theorists among them, agree that the multiverse is an option of last resort….
Looking back, I’m gratified at how far we’ve come but disappointed that a connection to experiment
continues to elude us.39

• Mary-Jane Rubenstein, writing in New Scientist, said,

Here’s the dilemma: if the universe began with a quantum particle blipping into existence, inflating
godlessly into space-time and a whole zoo of materials, then why is it so well suited for life? For
medieval philosophers, the purported perfection of the universe was the key to proving the
existence of God. The universe is so fit for intelligent life that it must be the product of a powerful,
benevolent external deity. Or, as popular theology might put it today: all this can’t be an accident.
Modern physics has also wrestled with this “fine-tuning problem,” and supplies its own answer. If
only one universe exists, then it is strange to find it so hospitable to life, when nearly any other value
for the gravitational or cosmological constants would have produced nothing at all. But if there is a
“multiverse” of many universes, all with different constants, the problem vanishes: we’re here
because we happen to be in one of the universes that works. No miracles, no plan, no creator.40

Notice: Physicists cannot help but acknowledge the truth of the Teleological Argument for the
existence of God. The Universe seems to have been perfectly designed—with detailed fine-tuning—
just for us. Design demands a designer. Resorting to belief in the multiverse is a concession by
naturalists that we have been right all along: there exists an “unseen realm.” But rather than
concede God, naturalists invent the evidence-less, imaginary multiverse. Ironically, all the while the
multiverse is itself a supernatural option—albeit, one without any rules concerning how we should
behave, making it attractive to many.

#4: “We Need to Mimic All of the Design We See in Nature.”

One area of scientific study where scientists are admitting, many times unconsciously but forcefully,
the presence of design in the Universe, is in the field of biomimetics, or biomimcry—as well as the
related field known as bio-inspired design. Biomimicry is an attempt to engineer something—design
something—using the natural world as the blue print. Engineers are becoming more and more
aware of the fact that the world around us is already filled with fully functional, superior designs in
comparison to what the engineering community has been able to develop to date.

The Web page for George Washington University’s Center for Biomimetics and Bioinspired
Engineering admits: “[D]espite our seeming prowess in these component technologies, we find it
hard to outperform Nature in this arena; Nature’s solutions are smarter, more energy-efficient,
agile, adaptable, fault-tolerant, environmentally friendly and multifunctional. Thus, there is much
that we as engineers can learn from Nature as we develop the next generation machines and
technologies.”41

It would be difficult to better summarize the decisive evidence for design that is clearly evident to
professional designers (engineers) when they look at the natural realm. This same mindset about
nature’s design, however, is becoming widespread in the engineering community. Consequently,
biomimicry is becoming a major engineering pursuit. The field of biomimicry is growing by leaps and
bounds, with research centers being established all over the world, with their express purpose being
to mimic the design of nature.
Some engineers are going even further. Realizing that nature’s designs are so impressive that many
times we simply cannot mimic them, they are attempting instead to control nature to use it as they
wish, rather than mimic it.42 Animals, for instance, possess amazing detection, tracking, and
maneuvering capabilities which are far beyond the knowledge of today’s engineering minds, and
likely will be for many decades, if not forever. An insect neurobiologist, John Hildebrand from the
University of Arizona in Tucson, admitted: “There’s a long history of trying to develop microrobots
that could be sent out as autonomous devices, but I think many engineers have realised [sic] that
they can’t improve on Mother Nature.”43 Of course, “Mother Nature” is not capable of designing
anything, since “she” is mindless—but notice that the desire to personify nature and give it design
abilities is telling. While mindless nature has no ability to design anything, the Chief Engineer, the
God of the Bible, on the other hand, can be counted on to have the best possible engineering
designs. Who, after all, could out-design the Grand Designer? In spite of the deterioration of the
world and the entrance of disease and mutations into the created order, after several millennia, His
designs still stand out as the best—unsurpassed by human wisdom.

Do not miss the implication of practicing biomimicry and autonomous biological control. They are a
tacit concession by the scientific community that nature exhibits design! Engineers are the designers
of the scientific community. When we engage in biomimicry, we are, whether consciously or not,
endorsing the concept that there is design in nature. It would be totally senseless to try to design
something useful by mimicking something that was random and chaotic. For the highly educated,
brilliant designers of the scientific community to copy nature, proves that nature must be much
more than the product of random chance and accidents.44

#5: “Evolutionary Design”?

A casual perusal of nearly any article by atheistic scientists when they are discussing the complexity
of various species reveals that even they cannot help but intuitively acknowledge a designer. Such
writings are riddled with the term “design,” apparently without the naturalistic writers following out
the implications of that term. Phrases like, “This feature of the salamander is designed to do this,”
are common place. Is it not true that the moment one acknowledges the existence of design, he is
admitting the existence of a designer at some point—just as acknowledging a poem implies the
existence of a poet? We simply cannot escape the evidence for design in nature and the reasoning
ability that God has put within us that presses us to acknowledge His existence and ensure that
those who wish to find Him will (Acts 17:26-28).

Some atheists have apparently noticed the tendency of naturalists to use such terminology. So,
rather than try to rectify atheistic terminology, they embrace it and simply try to redefine the word
“design.” Kenneth Miller is an evolutionary biologist at Brown University and co-author of the
popular Prentice Hall high school Biology textbook that is used extensively in the United States. In his
2008 book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, he admits that structural and
molecular biologists, as they study the natural order, routinely mention the presence of design in
their explorations. He, himself, admits that the human body shows evidence of design, pointing out
examples like the design of the ball and socket joints of the human hips and shoulders and the “s”
curve of the human spine that allows us to walk upright. In spite of such admissions, he irrationally
claims such admissions should not be considered to be self-defeating for naturalists. According to
Miller, the evidence for design in nature should be embraced. In an article published by Brown
University, he said, “There is, indeed, a design to life—an evolutionary design.”45 Merriam-Webster
defines an oxymoron as “a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (such as cruel
kindness).”46 Another example: “evolutionary design.”
If there is a painting, there must have been a painter. If there is a fingerprint, there must have been
a finger that made it. If there is a building, there must have been a builder. If there is an engine,
there must have been an engineer. If there is a creation of some sort, there must have been a
creator of it. And if there is design, there must have been a…. If a person completes that sentence
with any other word besides “designer,” is he not being the epitome of irrational? While we
understand Miller’s dilemma as a naturalist and his desire to find a way to dismiss the incessant,
forceful admissions of design by his highly credentialed colleagues, he must attempt to do so
through some other avenue besides merely attempting to redefine the word “design” in such a way
that it does not require intent and purpose—a mind.

The silliness of irrationally postulating that the clearly designed Universe could have designed itself
through evolution has not been lost to many in the engineering community. Typically, in the first
semester of engineering school, an introductory course presents broad concepts about engineering.
Students may learn the basic differences in the engineering fields (e.g., civil, electrical, mechanical,
chemical, structural, etc.). They may spend some time considering ethical dilemmas that engineers
have often faced in their careers. First-year students also usually give consideration to the design
process. Even in its basic form, the design process proves to be very complex, even before
considering the specialized scientific knowledge required to design a given item.

Many steps are necessary in order to get a product to the public. Consider one introductory
engineering textbook’s template for the design process47:

1. Problem symptom or expression; definition of product need; marketing information

2. Problem definition, including statement of desired outcome

3. Conceptual design and evaluation; feasibility study

4. Design analysis; codes/standards review; physical and analytical models

5. Synthesis of alternative solutions (back to design analysis for iterations)

6. Decision (selection of one alternative)

7. Prototype production; testing and evaluation (back to design analysis for more iterations)

8. Production drawings; instruction manuals

9. Material specification; process and equipment selection; safety review

10. Pilot production

11. Production

12. Inspection and quality assurance

13. Packaging; marketing and sales literature

14. Product

The design process is unquestionably lengthy, technical, complex, and calculated. To claim that an
efficient design could be developed without a designer is insulting to the engineering community.
Where there is design—complexity, purpose, planning, intent—there is a designer.

Conclusion
Truly, the Universe is replete with evidences of design. So much so, that even atheists cannot help
but concede that truth. It is noteworthy that leading naturalists are unwilling to suggest that the
laws of nature could create themselves naturally.

• Physicists know there must be a supernatural origin for those laws.

Similarly, more and more leading scientists are acknowledging that the existence of life is no
accident either.

• Biologists know there must be an intelligence behind it.

• Engineers are so awed by the clear-cut evidences for design on the Earth that they have
developed entire centers devoted to biomimicry—effectively plagiarizing the work of God when they
fail to give Him due credit as the Chief Engineer.

• Cosmologists gush with incredulity when they see the perfection of the created order as
well, knowing that the “fine-tuning”48 that is evident in the Universe seems to have resulted in it
being “custom tailored”49 for humans.

But how can there be “fine-tuning” if no One exists to tune in the first place? How can the Universe
be “custom tailored,” and yet there be no Tailor? If one is to be rational—drawing appropriate
conclusions from the evidence—he must recognize that there are implications to realizing that the
Universe is finely tuned and tailor made. The design in the Universe demands the existence of a
Universal Designer.
Arguments for Intelligent Design Pointing to a Creator
"What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design?"

Answer: Modern scientific insight has revealed startling evidence for intelligent design
from various disciplines, from biology to astronomy, from physics to cosmology. The
purpose of this article is to summarize some of the major arguments.

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Biology

In recent years, William Dembski has pioneered a methodology which has become known
as the “explanatory filter,” a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena
of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes/no
questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can
be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. Based upon this filter, if an event, system or
object is the product of intelligence, then it will:

1. Be contingent
2. Be complex
3. Display an independently specified pattern

Thus, in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent

design, it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature, nor can it
be the result of chance. According to Dembski, the explanatory filter highlights the most
important quality of intelligently designed systems, namely, specified complexity. In other
words, complexity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent; it must
also conform to an independently specified pattern.

Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of
the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information
comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the
functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in
part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.”
What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed
product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other
important biomolecules?

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Physics

In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference.
The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby
the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for
permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics
must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded
that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British
astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests
that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology,
and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one
calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost
beyond question.”

One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be
delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too
quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets, and galaxies.
If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the
formation of stars.

Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to
a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be
at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too
brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly,
all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them
incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life.

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Cosmology

With modern discoveries in the field of cosmology, the concept of a definitive beginning of
the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Kalam argument states
that:

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself

2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself

It thus appears from the data that an uncaused first cause exists outside the four
dimensions of space and time, which possesses eternal, personal, and intelligent qualities
in order to possess the capability of intentionally bringing space, matter—and indeed even
time itself—into being.

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – Conclusion

This article is but a brief overview of some of the key elements involved in the design
inference. The purpose is to demonstrate the wide body of support for intelligent design
from a large range of disciplines, including biology, physics and cosmology.
 Looking at the intelligent design of our solar system, Sun, Moon and Earth
point towards a creator

Stars exist in galaxies and there are three types of galaxies in the universe: spiral, elliptical, and
irregular galaxies. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is a spiral galaxy and our Sun resides far out from
the galaxy’s center. At the center of probably all galaxies is a black hole, which is so dense that
light cannot escape from it. Any matter that comes near a black hole is attracted to it by gravity,
and as the matter speeds up a large amount of radiation is emitted. Stars near the center of a
galaxy and far enough from the black hole can survive its gravitational pull, but they are subject
to much more intense radiation than stars far away from the center of a galaxy. Since radiation is
not conducive to life, it is good that our Sun is not near the center of our galaxy. Further the
Sun’s almost circular galactic orbit keeps it far away from the center. In the case of elliptical and
irregular galaxies, stars have orbits that cause them to visit the center of their galaxies, and thus
be exposed to the dangerous radiation that exits there.

If one picks stars at random, then the most likely choice would be a red dwarf, since 76% of stars
are red dwarfs. I don’t want to consider all star categories but rather focus on red dwarfs since
they are the most common. Red dwarfs are less massive than our Sun, which is among the 10%
most massive stars in the universe. Since they are smaller, red dwarfs don’t emit as much
energy as our Sun, and as a result vegetation would be more difficult to grow on a planet orbiting
them. They emit radiation in the red spectrum, which makes photosynthesis, the process by
which plants grow, less efficient. To prevent its liquid water from freezing, a planet would have to
orbit closer to a red dwarf than we do to our Sun. However, as one moves closer, tidal forces
would increase and a planet would end up in a tidal-locked state where one side of the planet
always faces the red dwarf and one always faces away. The side that faces the dwarf would be
very hot and the one facing away would be very cold. These facts mean that vegetation would be
more difficult to grow on a planet orbiting a red dwarf. Finally, red dwarfs don’t produce much
ultraviolet light. Early on in a planet’s existence, ultraviolet light is hypothesized to break up water
into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is a light gas and it escapes the planet’s gravitational
pull and flows into space, while the oxygen, being a heavier gas, remains and supports life. By
comparison not only is our Sun the right size but it produces the right mix of red and blue light.
There are many more massive stars than our Sun, but they produce too much ultraviolet light
compared to our Sun and planets orbiting them would be prone to experiencing strong ultraviolet
radiation, which is not conducive to life. We are very fortunate to have a Sun with just the right
properties to support life on Earth. If one picked a star at random, then the probability of finding
one with just the right properties to sustain life on planets orbiting it would be astronomically
small.

Next, consider our Moon, which, like the Sun, is critical to supporting life on the Earth. The
Moon’s gravitational pull on the Earth stabilizes the tilt in the Earth’s axis of rotation. If this axis
were not stable but varied, the result would be that over time the North Pole would migrate down
toward the equator, and there would be tremendous changes in climate around the Earth. Areas
that were once fertile, would become either too cold or too hot for crops to grow. As a result life
would be confined to small compact niches and a large diversity of life probably would not exist.
Mars has two moons but they are too small to stabilize its rotation, and thus, Mars’ axis of
rotation varies widely. Our Moon is relatively large compared to the size of the Earth.

Now, finally, let's consider the Earth. If the Earth’s mass were much smaller, its gravity would not
be strong enough to retain its atmosphere. If the Earth’s mass were too large then the pull of its
gravity would be too large, and it would not be possible to have high mountains. There is so
much water on the Earth that without mountains the entire surface of the Earth would be under
water. Plate tectonics and the related continental drift are also important to sustaining life on
Earth. Continental drift results in mountain formation and high ground for a diversity of life to
exist. A planet also has to have a minimum size to keep the heat in its interior from being lost too
quickly. Within the interior of the Earth radioactive reactions take place that generate heat. The
result is that the iron in the Earth’s core remains molten, and the molten iron generates a
magnetic field around the Earth. This magnetic field is crucial to life because it protects the Earth
from damaging cosmic rays. Without the magnetic field more dangerous radiation from cosmic
rays would reach the Earth’s surface and be harmful to life. The cosmic radiation would also strip
away Earth’s atmosphere. How common is it in the universe to have a planet with a molten iron
core? Not very.
In addition to the Earth's size and structure, consider its orbit, which is almost circular. If the orbit
were more elliptical, then the Earth would either be too hot when it approached the Sun or too
cold when it moved far away. If the radius of the Earth’s orbit were changed by ± 5% animal life
would not be possible. The zone for animal life in the solar system is very narrow.

From these arguments one can conclude that only a very, very tiny fraction of stars would have
just the right conditions for intelligent life as we know it to exist on a planet orbiting them. In our
universe, primitive life is likely, but intelligent life is far more rare. I believe that the facts definitely
point in the direction of a super intellectual Creator.