Extra-Biblical Proof of the Existence of God

Joe Sherman
530-902-1310
PO Box 275 Davis, Ca. 95617
[email protected]

God Has Given Us Plenty of Evidence

Evidence from everyday life, archeological evidence, our intellect, our hearts, & our conscience are all tools God has given us to affirm his existence, and science, rather than being a so-called opponent of God, was invented by God!

I.       Science affirms, rather than negates, God & the Bible

Science & creation affirms the existence of God & the truths of the Bible without contradiction, since God invented science. While the goal of the Bible is to proclaim God's love for man, & the means used to do this assumes the existence of God without necessarily trying to prove this fact, the Bible in no way contradicts science, nor does honest & competent science contradict or negate the Bible.

A.  All rational claims of science must be based on the "scientific method"

"Scientific method:" All valid scientific claims such as proofs or theories are universally limited to being based on data that is observable & repeatable in a controlled environment

1.    Science cannot deny the possibility of miracles; they do not fall under the criteria of the scientific method, therefore science cannot comment negatively on the possibility of miracles

2.    Science cannot deny the existence of God; God cannot be put through the requirements of the "scientific method."  For example, for a scientist to deny the existence of God, he would have to have been everywhere in the whole universe, & seen everything in the universe; if there is one place he has not been to, God could be there, & if there is one thing he has not seen, that could be God

B. The Genesis 1 Creation Account Is In Line With, & Even Professes Scientific Truth

An example of the complete errancy of one the skeptics' chief arguments claiming that modern science refutes God & the Bible is the argument that according to the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis, if taken literally, with each 'day' spoken of in the passage taken to be a literal 24 hour day, the earth would be only about 6,000 years old according to the Bible, yet science has demonstrated the earth to be closer to 6 billion years old, & the universe approximately 14 billion years old, ¹ using scientific methods even most Bible-believing scientists acknowledge to be reasonably reliable based on the evidence, (such as carbon 14 dating, etc.), therefore the evidence from science refutes the Bible & the existence of the God of the Bible. Nevertheless, the massive carelessness & lack of faith of these skeptics will be demonstrated here; taking a close look at the Genesis creation account will uphold & affirm the Bible, as the Bible tells the story of the God who gave us science as a gift, & he does not contradict himself! The literary style of the Bible is a combination of historic narrative, poetic, didactic, & apocalyptic, making use of literal teaching, parables (a story to teach a spiritual or moral truth), hyperboles (using opposite extremes to make an important point), metaphors (a form of symbolism), as well as everyday figures of speech. The Bible is not a science textbook, nor does it need to be to communicate truth. For honest & intelligent insight, we must respect the literary style of the work; to deny this truth is to commit intellectual suicide.

A precursory study of Gen. 1 shows it is written in poetry, Gen. 2 becomes historic narrative. Poetry is universally known to commonly make use of not only figures of speech, but a plethora of literary devices to make its points. When the Bible talks about creative acts occurring on 'the first day,' 'the second day,' etc., it is using a figure of speech rather than literal days. Additionally, 2 Pet. 3:8b says, "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," explicitly demonstrating the Bible?s use of figurative speaking, and using common sense we see in everyday conversation, if one says, "In my great grandfather's 'day,' they drove horses & buggies," no one would try to pin down that individual claiming he implied his grandfather only lived for one day; it is a figure of speech honestly & appropriately used to communicate a valid truth. Therefore to try to say the Bible is false because it uses figures of speech is intellectually dishonest & self-defeating. But not only does the Bible not contradict science in Gen. 1, watch how the Bible, this part written more than 3500 years ago, fully affirms & even professes scientific truths that we have just been discovering in the 20^th & 21^st Century! Gen. 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens & the earth." Taking this at face value, the earth at this point is created, as well as the sun, moon, & stars (heavens). A crucial yet obvious factor that most non-believing critics often miss is that with any study of a story of the unfolding of a physical event, we must have a point of reference,¹ so that we have the perspective desired by the narrator so we can get an accurate picture of what's going on; Gen. 1:2b, "and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters;" the surface of the waters is where God's creative Spirit is, on the surface of the earth, not up in space looking down at the earth, therefore our perspective is to be seeing the unfolding of creation from the surface of the earth. Gen. 1:2a, "The earth was without form & void; & darkness was on the face of the deep." 1:6-8, "Then God said, 'Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.' God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. So the evening & the morning were the second day." This is not talking about the creation of land, that occurs in v.9; this passage demonstrates the creation of the atmosphere & sky above the surface of the earth. We are shown from the details of the process of creating the earth (from our perspective on the surface), that there is much moisture, gases, & intra-planetary debris on the surface of the earth; so much so that at first there isn't even yet what could be considered an atmosphere above the earth (& so much so that at the beginning it is dark (v.2) even though the sun already exists (v.1) because no light can yet reach the surface). The expanse, or atmosphere, is created to separate the waters below (the sea) from the waters above (clouds, rain clouds, moisture, remaining debris). The resulting expanse, or atmosphere, is called heaven, as we often, especially poetically, call the skies today, & all this occurring on figurative 'day 2' which could & does actually represent millions of years according to the text, the context, & Peter?s instruction. Notice the closer we look at the Genesis account, the more it not only lines up with science, but actually contains an accurate rudimentary science lesson. Having established the original conditions of the surface from v.6-8, at first being dark & not even having an atmosphere, we can better understand v.3, "Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Before creating the atmosphere, God first allowed enough of the moisture, vapors, inter-planetary debris, etc., to be cleared away from the surface so that light from the sun could reach the surface of the earth, although the sun, moon, & stars themselves are not yet visible on the surface. After creating land, (v.9,10) God then creates plants (v.11), all on figurative 'day 3.' A common argument is that if living things (plants) were created before there was a sun to provide warmth & energy, how would they survive for even a fraction of a second (since the Bible says the sun wasn't created until 'day 4,' v.14-19)? First of all, God, being omnipotent, could easily do this if he wanted to by fiat miracle, but we see from this account that God uses ordinary science; the sun already exists (v.1), and as of the end of 'day 1' there exists light on the surface of the earth (v.3-5), therefore a limited amount of light, warmth, & energy is already reaching the earth from the sun. But remember, our perspective is from the surface of the earth, so although God cleared away much of the gases, moisture, & debris on the surface when he created light, & more so when he created the atmosphere, evidently there still existed for millions of years enough of these elements as to make for an atmosphere with the sun moon & stars not yet visible from the surface. "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,' God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; [He made] the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, the fourth day," Gen. 1:14-19. God cleared away the remainder of the vapor, intra-planetary debris, etc., so that from the surface we are now able to see the sun, moon, & stars that were there from the beginning! Far from contradicting science, this passage actually teaches good science, almost purely as an aside!

C. Hebrews 11 Account of Scientific Facts on Creation was Ahead of Scientists by 2,000 Years

God, "Declaring the end from the beginning" (Is. 46:10), says in Heb. 11:3, "For by faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made out of things which are visible." This account, written almost 2,000 years ago, declares facts about creation that scientists only recently "discovered" in the 19th & 20th centuries: Atoms, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc., the building blocks of life, invisible to the naked eye & even using all but the most high-powered microscopes, are what all visible things are made of! Until these recent confirmations of modern scientists, this teaching of the Bible must've seemed very hard to believe to believers & nonbelievers alike, but nobody changed the Bible to try to cover up the supposed mistake, & lo & behold, God was right!!! Go figure. The fact is though, not only is the Bible in agreement with & in line with fundamental modern-day scientific breakthroughs, the Bible was already professing & claiming them thousands of years before mere mortal men stumble upon them!

D. Evidence Confirming Bible's Claim that Christ Holds All Things Together

E. Prayer works

Statistical scientific studies based on both eyewitness testimonies & physical evidences show that prayer is effective in bringing desired results⁴

Ex.: Healings from diseases & injuries, repaired relationships, changes in behaviors, victories over other areas of life

II.       Overwhelming evidence for God in everyday life

  

A. Order & design of the universe

"Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness," Acts 14:17; "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world," Psalm 19:1-4a.

1.   2^nd Law of Physics (Law of Thermodynamics)
2^nd Law of Physics: Things left by themselves without any energy put into the system proceed from order to disorder, the burden of proof is on the unbelievers to explain how creatures as ordered & complex as human beings originated in defiance of this fundamental Law of Physics. The only rational explanation is a God who created us!⁵

2.   Complexity of order & design                                                                                          

a. Irreducibly Complex factor
Human eye, human body, humans do not yet fully understand the human body it is so complex & ordered; the human eye, for example, is an example of various human body parts that are "irreducibly complex,"⁶ i.e., the human eye is so complex that not only are the odds of self-assembly (through evolution) without intelligent intervention or orchestration so remote as to make it virtually inconceivable, the human eye is also made up of individual parts such as the cornea, the retina, & the lens that are so complex in & of themselves that the chances of random self-assembly are so astronomical as to once again make assembly without Divine intervention it inconceivable; yet this remoteness is increased exponentially when it is considered that after these parts have somehow "magically" self-assembled against all rational odds, they then somehow have to find each other & combine all at once to make a working eye, while this eye simultaneously connects with a live complete human body!

b. Order & design of the universe
In the last 15 years astronomers have been increasingly acknowledging the overwhelmingly undeniable truths displayed by the stars & heavens demonstrating the existence of God & his creative handiwork⁷

c. We do not see complexity come out of random chance in real life

   Chances of all chemical substances being together at the same precise time in the exact amounts under the necessary conditions in order to form the bonds necessary to make the jump from non-life to life while simultaneously having the necessary environment to sustain life are 1 in 10 to the billionth power!⁸ A grain of human rationality says without a doubt "no" to these odds.

B.  The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

"Because He [God] has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead," Acts 17:31; The existence & supernatural life of Christ is evidenced both within & without the Bible; the Muslim faith acknowledges the sinless life of Christ, the physical existence of the Christian church today founded on Christ's claims to have risen from the dead evidences the truthfulness of the resurrection, a feat no other human being has accomplished in a historically verifiable way, a feat no one has the power to accomplish on their own, an irrefutable demonstration of the existence of God. The radically transformed lives of the disciples of Jesus based upon his resurrection, attested to in reliable extra-biblical historical documents,⁹ is witness to Christ's resurrection & demonstrates the existence of a supernatural God, & when examined carefully, as the Bible says, proves God's existence!

C.  Difference between conscience & instinct demonstrates humans are not animals, nor did we evolve from animals

The human conscience is universally recognized & proves we are not animals, but reasoning, moral human beings, capable of great acts of love and sacrifice for love

1.   What the Bible says about the conscience: "For there is no partiality with God. For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel," Rom 2:11-16.

2.   In addition to the Bible there is further clear evidence of the existence of the conscience distinct from animal instinct. "Historically, almost every culture has recognized the existence of such a faculty. Ancient Egyptians, for example, were urged not to transgress against the dictates of the heart, for one 'must stand in fear of departing from its guidance.'"¹⁰

3.    Webster's dictionary defines instinct as "a complex response to environmental stimuli without involving reason," and adds that it is "inheritable and unalterable."¹¹ The goal of instincts is to both preserve the individual and the group or species.¹² Webster's defines conscience as a knowledge by one's inner self of the moral right and wrong of one's own actions.¹³ Comparing the two definitions, we see that the conscience uses reason, and is concerned with morality (decisions of right and wrong), while instincts (in general, pertaining to animals) do not make use of reason, and are concerned with the physical preservation of the individual or the group or species. Two different goals, two different means used to reach those goals.

Ex.: A human will valiantly give his life for another out of love, with no concern for the "usefulness for the species" of either himself or the other; no occurrence of this with animals

Science has no explanation for the conscience apart from acknowledging the existence of God

 

D.   Existence of human rationality, human personality, reason, love

Not explained by science, human rationality, personality, reason, & love are evidences for the existence of a rational, personal, loving Creator with a plan & purpose for us, rather than existence coming from fate or chance.¹⁴

E. Man is incurably "religious"

"Because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them," Rom 1:19-32.

90% of all societies & cultures today & throughout history believe in some form of God or a spiritual dimension to life¹⁵

F.  The highest institutions of learning have never come up with a good explanation for the "meaning of life" apart from God

G. Present-day examples from creation

1.  We never see "being" coming from "non-being," "being" always comes from "being"

2.  We do not see light coming from non-light, light always comes from light

3.  Universal terminology, the almost universal use by societies of the terms "creatures," "created," & "made" when referring to the existence of humans points to a superior Creator or Maker; the terms "gifts" & "gifted" when referring to abilities of humans points to a superior Giver.

III.       All men live our lives by faith in evidence, not by proof

A. Career goals based on faith

Years of study &/or training without proof that career will still exist, or that we will actually obtain a position in that specific career, yet based on faith in reasonable evidence, people will devote many years toward obtaining a career

B.  Love, justice are invisible, intangible, cannot be proven, yet their existence is not denied

Both are regularly fought for & men have laid down their lives for them; have you ever seen a "pound" of love, or a "truckload" of justice? Neither of these are visible or tangible; you can't touch them or see them, we only see manifestations of them; yet no one denies they exist.

C.  Personal relationship based on faith

To initiate a new personal relationship, by faith we begin talking to a hunk of protoplasm having the appearance of a human; the person inside that we form the relationship with is invisible

IV.       The evidence eliminates possibility of random chance (evolution)

A.  Evolution's facade of truth is based on deceptive propaganda & unfair government censoring of the truth

Contrary to popular belief, not only is Darwinism, or evolution, is not a theory, in fact, it does not even qualify as a hypothesis! "Darwinism is not a scientific hypothesis"... if it were "a scientific hypothesis based on a fair assessment of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago," Prof. P.J. Moreland.¹⁶ Evolutionists/Darwinists have had a complete monopoly on the "microphone" & the "spotlight" both publicly & governmentally, being virtually the only view allowed to be taught in the public school system to the American public from kindergarten to 12^th grade, uncontestedly deceiving millions of children when they are most impressionable, who then become deceived adults, most never, or rarely ever, having a chance to hear evolution challenged or even questioned, let alone being able to be taught the truth based on the facts, creationism.¹⁷ Due to the recent biased court rulings overprotecting separation of church & state, no teaching is allowed in any science subjects in public schools having the terms "God," "creation," "created," etc., almost completely eliminating any teaching of the creationist view of the origin of life, even though the evidence vastly supports the creation view. This false message is so strongly propagated, being to the general public for all appearances sake without viable refutation (due to the court's elimination of the possibility of the creationist view being represented at all in this crucial quasi-public arena), that it is automatically elevated to the appearance of an irrefutable scientific truth that supposedly cannot be denied, yet the truth is it doesn't even qualify to be a competent hypothesis! Evolution, saying that man originated from animals, this occurring through a process of animals evolving over millions of years from one species, or kind, to another, until attaining to the species of man, is also in direct conflict with the Bible; "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being," Gen. 2:7; ^"Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind;' and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good," Gen. 1:25,26. According to the Bible, God created human beings with a specific deliberate miraculous creative act, & did so in our present form that we exist in today, except for our fallen nature; we humans, as well as each species of animal, were created complete according to our respective 'kinds,' or species.

B.  Both of evolution's alternate explanations are fallacies
[Section B heavily reliant on the report "The problem of genetic improbability;" from The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation, Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, as cited by Matt Slick, CARM.org.]

1. Explanation 1: Natural selection a farce to the thinking man

There is almost no evidence for 'macro-evolution' (referred to as evolution, the change from one species to another or the addition within a species of a new organ or appendage).¹⁸ Natural selection or adaptation within a family or species is a fact (in some circles known as 'micro-evolution'), acknowledged & accepted by creationists. Defined as "the process by which an organisms with helpful adaptive qualities are permitted by nature to transmit their genetic information to offspring. It is also the process by which an organism with harmful qualities are removed from the environment."¹⁹ As an example, a species of bird on a remote island running out of food on the island & having to fly to another island to obtain food; only the birds with long wings are able to make the trip, therefore the members of the species that survive are the birds tending to have longer wings; with their corresponding genetic material generating longer wings, their offspring & therefore the species will survive as the same species but with more members tending to have longer wings. The longer winged birds were "selected" by nature to survive. The central "hypothesis" of evolution ('macro-evolution') is that it is an extension of natural selection. It assumes a process of billions of gene mutations over billions of years is able to produce new organs & appendages resulting in new functions, & eventually new species.

The "hypothesis" for evolution is not credible to a rational, thinking man. There is no mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists have no explanation as to the actual process of evolution; changes seen to have occurred through natural selection are of a completely different scope & nature than those required to take place in order for a living creature to evolve from one species to another, from one animal to another, or to grow a whole new organ or appendage.²⁰ Rather than a natural emphasis or selection of an appendage or characteristic that the creature was already born with (such as a longer wing), we must believe that whole new appendages pop out of thin air, or a body is transformed into a completely different shape & form, such as a fish becoming a mammal, & this occurring without any mechanism or means as to how these drastic changes occur; natural selection on a greater scale is an insufficient & erroneous explanation.

"In 1967a group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians met to consider whether random mutations and natural selection could qualify as the mechanism of evolutionary change. The answer of the mathematicians was 'No.'...Participants at the symposium, all evolutionists, recognized the need for some type of mechanism to reduce the odds against evolution. In the words of Dr. Murray Eden of M.I.T.:

What I am claiming is that without some constraint on the notion of random variation, in either the properties of the organism or the sequence of the DNA, there is no particular reason to expect that we could have gotten any kind of viable form other than nonsense."²¹

Furthermore, while there is evidence & plenty of real life examples of natural selection, there exist no real life examples nor is there a shred of evidence of evolutionary changes! The theory claims organisms evolved from one species to another over millions of years, with the existence of 'transitional species' occurring in the past; i.e. "species" of animals having the physical traits of two or more species that are in existence today (for example, a "species" that once existed for perhaps millions of years that was half amphibian & half mammal, being in transition of evolving into a complete mammal). But where are all of these what would be by necessity thousands if not millions of transitional species? This claim of evolution represents thousands or even millions of different kinds of full-blown animals that allegedly previously existed that today we have not a shred of fossil evidence or any other evidence of their existence! This dilemma of the lack of existence of even a shred of evidence is in fact admitted by Darwin himself, Darwin being highly perplexed by this fact.

2. Explanation 2: Random mutations resulting in diversity of life isn't a rational notion considering the odds against it

a. Calculating the odds

The minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five, but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli, one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful, there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene [citations omited].²²

The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed! [citations omited].²³

But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another...When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes, it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth [citations omited].²⁴

b. Scientists have rejected the notion, & evolutionists have conceded the stark remoteness of the odds of complexity of life from random mutations

"Renowned French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grass' has made no secret of his skepticism:

What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Düürer's "Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it [citations omited]."²⁵

Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000.²⁶

The odds of humans originating through a process of evolution are so astronomical as to make it nonsense to seriously consider this a viable scientific process. "This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. As stated by William Fix:

Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible."²⁷

"...Thus, several decades have only confirmed the observation of Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959):

[I]t is now discovered that favorable mutations are not only small but exceedingly rare, and the fortuitous combination of favorable mutations such as would be required for the production of even a fruit fly, let alone a man, is so much rarer still that the odds against it would be expressed by a number containing as many noughts as there are letters in the average novel, 'a number greater than that of all the electrons and protons in the visible universe' -- an improbability as great as that a monkey provided with a typewriter would by chance peck out the works of Shakespeare."²⁸

No evidence for evolution even in the most accurate fossil records! The evidence from fossils located at the bottom of the sea, are the most accurate records available today; the original creatures that were fossilized would be more protected from predators & the elements upon death, being more quickly covered by sediment on the bottom of the sea & therefore more protected & preserved rather than being out in the open on land where they would be another creature's food or more quickly eroded by the elements. Yet research of these, the most accurate records available, demonstrates absolutely no evidence of having undergone any evolutionary process!²⁹ Not a single example of an occurrence of evolution from fossils at the bottom of the sea, fossils on dry land, nor any other archeological discovery. And this fossil problem for the evolutionists "is getting worse all the time."³⁰ Considering all the evidence, there is not a single example of adaptations from genetic mutations resulting in a new species, the variations always exist within the 'kind,' as the Bible puts it. Evolution does not even qualify as a serious hypothesis, & is instead a feeble attempt to deny the overwhelming evidence of creation & the existence of the Creator God!

C. The 'irreducibly complex' theory puts the final nail in the coffin of evolution
Explained above, this is a very viable theory that in fact demonstrates that regarding the human body, the fact that it is so complex & intricately designed & furthermore having so many individual parts that are themselves made up of individual parts that are intricate & complex, that the chances of the human body originating from a lower species through evolution & by random chance, without initiation or direction of an intelligent mind, are so astronomical as to scream to the intellectual, rational mind that just about any hypothesis or theory would be an improvement over evolution!

V.    The Extra-Biblical Evidence Allows for No Other Conclusion Than the Existence of God

Rather than emerging in a shambles or appearing as a "fairy tale" or "crutch for the weak" when submitted to a rigorous scrutiny of the evidence, the case for the Bible & the existence of God comes out smelling like a rose, & in fact it is the views of the non-believers, & the case for evolution, that crash & burn when confronted with the truth of the evidence. It is clear that it is the atheist & evolutionists who are "grasping at straws," against all rational odds & against all reason, for some kind of scientific explanation for human existence apart from being created by God; the argument for God's existence is firm & reliable, being clearly founded on evidences & proof! Jesus put it like this, "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was its fall!" Matt. 7:24-27. A serious look at the evidence proclaims the existence of God. Science overwhelmingly supports & even substantiates God?s existence. Any arguments to the contrary, as we have seen, crash & burn; "Because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead," Rom. 1:20. Read the Bible to get the whole story of a God who loves you, but most importantly, follow Jesus! "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life!" Jn. 3:16.

References [Under construction!]

¹⁶ Woodward, Thomas, A Professor Takes Darwin to Court. New Porte Richey: Trinity College; 1997-2000, online, www.apologetics.org/articles/court.html

¹⁷ Johnson, Phil, ibid., p32-34

¹⁸ Johnson, Phil, Darwin on Trial. Washington D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991, p18,27.

¹⁹ Slick, Matt, Evolutionary Terminology. Escondido: 2002, Matt J. Slick, online, www.carm.org

²⁰ Johnson, Phil, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, ibid., p.58,59

²¹ Slick, Matt, The Problem of Genetic Improbability. Escondido: 2002, Matt J. Slick, online, www.carm.org, quoting The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation, by Ashby Camp.

²² Ibid.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ Johnson, Phil, ibid., p60

³⁰ Johnson, Phil, Darwin on Trial, ibid., p.57

© 2005, Joseph A. Sherman