Darwin with Cataracts

Charles Darwin lacked modern scientific tools. Compared to the instruments we have today, Darwin was like an old woman with cataracts attempting to spot earthworms from a hot air balloon. You’d have a better chance of spotting golf balls on the moon using binoculars than Darwin had in interpreting the cosmos with his scientific instruments.

As a student of biological sciences, and holding a minor in it, I can give proper regard to the impact of the work of Darwin, and how he dedicated his energies to understanding the cosmos through biology. His work has echoed through the halls of almost every school in the modern world, and his research was exemplary for its time.

Like I said, his scientific instruments were crude and primitive, therefore limiting the accuracy and types of data he could gather. When Darwin looked through his “modern” microscope at a cell, he saw a simple circle or square with some fuzzy stuff in the middle. Today when we look at the cell, we see a complex – that’s an understatement – machine which operates with perfect internal grace and majesty. The levels of interdependence, precision, and artistic beauty within the organelles blow away anything ever created by man. If my memory serves me correctly, Darwin made remarks to the effect that if in the future of science we became able to study and conclude that there were parts within a cell which are complex and interdependent beyond what he was able to see, that then we would have to allow for the possible deconstruction of his theories.

Holy cow.

You see, if 2 different parts within a cell must have the other one to operate, then they would have both had to have been there to start with (in the first cell which existed). The problem for Darwin and his descendants is not 1 pair of interdependent organelles, but multiple groups in each type of cell, organism, animal, plant, etc. The “odds,” if we can even use such silly terms, of such an outcome from a random, unguided macro-evolution are virtually, and realistically 0.

Yet the Darwinian view persists. A house must have a foundation, and the house that Darwin built was founded on the theory that from simple forms of life much more complex, intricate life could arise by random accident. In itself that is unproven to this day, and further is illogical – (order from chaos?) Yet the house that Darwin built is inhabited by the brightest minds in academia, and I would wager it is held by the majority of educated people worldwide. What happened here? Now that we can see the brilliant design within just one cell, how could it be that so many people would still hold to an idea which posits completely random, unguided mutation in millions of species, each of which has become a whole, perfect organism able to reproduce within its own kind? Think of a simpler example: take an iPhone or a Toyota Prius and imagine that it could arise from accidental melding of parts over millions of years. Have we gotten absurd enough yet? But wait! There’s more… try to make the leap of unfounded faith that a living cell, almost infinitely more complex and intricate could arise from this same unproven process?

For an idea to be scientifically proven, it must be testable. Naturalistic evolution is anything but testable. To be fair, Darwin’s theory of the origin of species is interesting, but ultimately it is simply a guess based on an interpretation of evidence. It barely qualifies as a true scientific theory if it even does.

Ultimately, each of us will be required to place faith in something… because none of us was there “in the beginning!”

This is the juncture where the agnostics, atheists and antitheists part ways from the theists and creationists. We are forced to ask where it all started, and therefore, what or who was there before the start?

Try on this logic for size: If we put forward an eternal, creating, sentient being, then the cosmos can be as it is. If there is no eternal, creating, sentient being, then nothing can possibly exist because matter and energy cannot create themselves. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Yet if I were a professor at an average university, I could lose my job for publishing an article like this. Something beyond raw science and research is at stake here. When professional scientists’ jobs are threatened and lost (as they are) for asking legitimate questions like this, we can be sure some political motive is afoot. What is at stake?

Now I will make the (logical, informed) leap to the biblical worldview in order to answer the question.

What is at stake is the implications of an interpretation of the cosmos as an orderly, harmonious whole which is created, governed, and at the service of the Creator and Sovereign.

The so-called “Big-Bang” theory of a causeless cosmos is devoid of a logical premise, and accordingly the entire story from that point falls flat. There had to be an Originator, or there would be no origin. It is that simple. So, I’m back to the question. Why is this such a difficult, heated debate with such entrenched, militaristic ideology on all sides?

What is at stake is the implications of an interpretation of the cosmos as an orderly, harmonious whole which is created, governed, and at the service of the Creator and Sovereign.

Even if we say for sake of argument that the Bible is not supernatural, and we set it aside as irrelevant, we are still in need of a coherent explanation of our origin. Stephen Hawking, the genius scientist of international acclaim, recently wrote in his book The Grand Design that we actually can explain the cosmos as having arisen ex nihilo, out of nothing and without a creator. The universe created itself. If one of the most brilliant astrophysicists in history could come out with an illogical, sad, and ridiculous statement like that, there must be something driving him away from the axiomatic reality of an eternal *something*. To state with a serious face that there was a beginning point to everything as if everything within the cosmos is self-created is to blind yourself, say that up is down, to say that squares have 5 sides, to say that we exist and do not exist simultaneously. It is foolish. It is openly foolish. It is indicative of something going on at the heart of the issue.

There must be an intellectual fear of an interpretation of the cosmos as an orderly, harmonious whole which is created, governed, and at the service of the Creator and Sovereign.

Do you fear that conclusion?

Let’s be honest. Our scientific instrumentation has matured and grown in precision and has revealed a magical, fantastical micro and macro cosmos which consumes the mind with wonder. Yet still with all of our knowledge and calculation of the universe, the conclusions to which our most intellectual class is coming are even more anti-creator, anti-truth, and anti-Bible than ever before. This is a tragedy (another understatement). God has gifted men with such an awesome wisdom in science and investigation. We have these brains which can conceive of ideas which are so much bigger than any of us individually or as a whole. We are driven to search for meaning and cohesion in the cosmos. We are designed to find our Maker.

He has spoken, He means to be heard, and He wants to be known… check it out:

In testing the Bible for divine origin, it stands as the definitively different and unique book. Its explanations of origins and history are quite logical, perfectly consistent with the cosmos as we see it, and a perfectly beautiful tapestry of divine revelation. Why is it not good enough for people to see and believe?

In 1 Corinthians 1:18 – 25 we are confronted with the irony and tragedy of the wisdom of this world which only leads to intellectual and spiritual darkness. Stephen Hawking may have an intensely powerful brain, but his rejection of divine Sovereignty and revelation in the Scriptures has lead to his becoming a public fool. Never forget, my friends, that God chooses the weak things of this world to shame the wise. Once we have rejected the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God, we set ourselves adrift into a dark morass of ignorance and eternal suicide. I weep for my family, friends, and neighbors who see but don’t see, who hear but are deaf, who are alive yet dead.

Darwin made just one example of how man finds any way possible to break free of the Sovereignty of the Creator. Romans 1:18 – 32 details the regression of man in rejecting the Creator and so being turned over to a darkened, foolish mind. Here in Romans we see that with or without the special revelation of God, people refuse to acknowledge and thank Him, choosing instead to follow their own desires. Even more sad is when someone concludes that the God of the Bible cannot be the truth and the true God, leaving them nowhere left to turn other than to the darkened, limited sense of reality outside of knowing the Creator. The interpretation of the cosmos minus the lens of Scripture leads men to invent anything but truth, ranging from the universe as being on the back of a turtle all the way up to the sophisticated, pseudo-scientific ideas of naturalistic Darwinism.

I suppose that even if God Himself were to appear among us, work miracles, speak as no one ever spoke, and was able to even predict the future perfectly, that even then we would not listen and would even kill Him… like we did.

I offer to all who read this, the revelation of reality as it is from the breath of the One who created in unfettered freedom. There are stacks of books which will enlighten the mind and heart concerning the harmony between the Bible and the visible cosmos. The only question is, will we see our need of God, accept Him on His terms according to His reality, or will we venture into the swamps of fallen logic to attempt an autonomous reconstructing of the cosmos?

Thanks for reading,

-Justin