There isn’t any argument that proves conclusively that there is a God, and his existence can never be disproved. Although there are many logical arguments that distinguish the God of Christianity above all other philosophies, religions, worldviews, and mythologies. Unfortunately, materiel naturalists have already set the rules and guidelines to all discoveries, but making the assumption we can only discover God in a laboratory setting under the scientific method is very ignorant in my opinion. God cannot be proven using the guidelines of Empirical Rationalism. Moreover, God will not conform to man’s status quo and be put in a box. Does a piece of clay if it could speak hypothetically have any autonomy to command the potter to create with certain specifications and guidelines? A very strong argument for the existence of God can be made using deductive reasoning, logic, and critical thinking, with the force of probability. Professor Vincent Ruggiero in his book Beyond Feelings a Guide to Critical Thinking states, “If certainty is unattainable, evidence is sufficient if one view of the issue has been shown to have the force of probability. This means that the view in question is demonstrably more reasonable than any competing view.” (Ruggiero 74) It isn’t one argument that leads me to believe in God. It is many different arguments collaborated together that point beyond a reasonable doubt to the Christian God of the Bible, and the competing view is insufficient in my opinion. You will not be able to discover God the way you want to discover him if you demand that he can only be discovered under laboratory settings, but you can find him. Most importantly you will need to have an open mind otherwise why waste your time reading this mediocre essay?

   Until recently Material Naturalists have always postulated that the vast universe was eternal and infinite with no beginning, it just always existed. This idea was refuted by Einstein’s Theory of relativity when scientific evidence was shown conclusively that the universe is finite, and had a beginning. Scientists can now show that space, time, and matter did come into existence all at a specific time in history. This fact leads some scientists to the belief that the universe exploded out of nothing to create everything, and apparently to some scientists this phenomenon isn’t worth explanation. In Dawkins book The Ancestor’s Tale he wrote, “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.” (Dawkins 613)

   Some scientists are at least honest when interpreting the data on the Big Bang
phenomenon. Paul Davies a physicist, and cosmologist stated, “The Big Bang represents
the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness
that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principles.” (Davies 161).

   Some scientists when interpreting the evidence come to the conclusion that God created the universe. Physicist Arno Penzias a Nobel Laureate in Physics stated in the New York Times on March 12, 1978, “The best data we have concerning the Big Bang are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.”

   Miracles are not allowed when you subscribe to the Atheistic worldview there is no
invoking the supernatural so the Big Bang theory is in violation of the First Law of
Thermodynamics. This principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can
neither be created nor destroyed. The late Dr. Isaac Asimov stated, “To express this, we
can say that energy can be transferred from one place to another or transformed from one form to another, but it can neither be created nor destroyed.” (Asimov) The Big Bang
theory also violates the law of causality; every effect must have an equal or greater cause. 

   A certain degree of faith is required regardless of your world view whether you are an
atheist or a theist because the creation of the universe was a one time unrepeatable event. Although, it is logically sound to infer that when something is created there must be a creator. The Theistic World View is perfectly consistent with the scientific evidence
outlined in the Big Bang Theory. The Christian God is omnipotent and perfectly capable
of transcending physical principles and creating miracles. Most importantly a creator
would logically have to be outside his creation. If a baker creates a cake he is obviously
outside of his creation the cake. I don’t believe it is illogical to infer that if God did create the boundaries that govern the universe perhaps he is outside those boundaries.
Moreover, logic, the law of causality, and the First Law of Thermodynamics are not
violated; therefore when compared to the Atheistic World View the Theistic World View
is a more reasonable faith. 

   If the Atheistic World View is correct then according to Darwin’s chief apologist
Richard Dawkins the type of universe we would expect to observe is a blind, purposeless
universe that is void of order. In Dawkin’s book the Blind Watchmaker he wrote, “All
appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics,
albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his
cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with future purpose in his mind’s eye.
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered,
and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful
form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not
plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play
the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.”

   On the contrary if a God did create the universe we would expect to see an ordered and purposeful finely tuning universe. The Anthropic Principle verifies such a universe due to the fact that there are hundreds of specific and detailed perimeters, ratios, and natural laws in the universe that if manipulated with any slight deviation then life on earth, and the universe would cease to exist. There are hundreds of these very precise laws that can be empirically tested using the scientific method. Moreover, many scientists have concluded that it is extremely improbable to conclude that all of these hundreds of orchestrated finely tuned laws could have come about by mere chance.

   Bijan Nemati a Jet Propulsion Physicist stated, “If an attempt to estimate the probability
of obtaining this combination of factors researchers have developed equations assigning a conservative 1-10 value to each factor deemed necessary for advanced life. Every
element has to be there at the same time you have to multiply the probabilities and you
get one thousandth of one trillionth, (1,000,000,000,000) and you compare that to the 100 billion stars in the galaxy. On their face value these probabilities are speaking. What they are telling us is that this can’t happen.” (Privileged Planet)

   In my opinion I think that it is perfectly plausible and rational to make the inference
that these hundreds of precise and detailed laws, perimeters, and ratios have been
designed. Coming to the logical conclusion that when laws, parameters, and ratios are
designed this implies a designer. Moreover, it is also logical to come to the conclusion
that when there are implied laws that govern the universe this suggests that there is a law giver. I find that the Theistic World View is much more sufficient and rational than the Atheistic World View which states that over billions of years these laws could have come about by blind, random chance processes, or coincidence. George Greenstein Professor of Astronomy at Amherst College wrote in his book The Symbiotic Universe, “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (Greenstein 26-27)

   Christianity is the only religion that has proven itself reliable throughout the historical
record. The accuracy of the Bible is unprecedented and distinguishes itself above every
other aspiring would be holy book. The Bible was written by many different authors, over
approximately 1600 years. It would be impossible, illogical, and irrational to make the
assumption that the authors some how got together and collaborated their stories. Most
importantly the Bible has maintained its precision accuracy even after the fact of being
translated into many different languages, and over many thousands of years.
Unfortunately, due to human error there have been some minor copying errors made by
scribes throughout the centuries, but scholars have concluded that the Bible has
maintained a level of 99% accuracy. This can be demonstrated by the monumental
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

   The Dead Sea Scrolls are ancient unaltered manuscripts unearthed at the Dead Sea that were carbon dated approximately two thousand years old. These manuscripts are virtually identical to our current Old Testament testifying to the consistency, and unaltered precision accuracy the Bible has maintained for over three thousand years. Most of the books of the Old Testament were found except the Book of Ester. The claims of the skeptic insisting that the Bible is historically inaccurate are refuted with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Moreover, out of all ancient books the Bible has the most manuscripts, and earliest dated manuscripts.

   Archeologist Sir Fredrick Kenyon stated, “The number of manuscripts of the New
Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of
the church, is so large that it is practically certain the true reading of every doubtful
passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.” (Mcfarland 84)

   Archaeology has proven on hundreds of occasions that the Bible can be considered
historically accurate. The Bible confirms precise and detailed events, actual kings,
people, places, and specific customs of various nationalities all of these can be verified by archaeologists, and historians. Out of the hundreds of archaeological excavations to date there have never been any historical contradictions to the events outlined in the
scriptures. “Archeologist Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on
Israeli archeology, commented, ‘No archeological discovery has ever controverted a
biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in
clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.” (Mcfarland 92)

   The Bible also has proven to be the only ancient religious text to be inspired by God’s
word through hundreds of precise prophecies that were fulfilled throughout the centuries.
The Bible has sixty six individual books, and was written by numerous different authors,
over numerous different times approximately sixteen hundred years. Therefore, it is
impossible for prophecies to be individually manipulated by any one person, or group of
people. Moreover, it is mathematically improbable, and the only logical, and plausible
explanation is that the prophecies of the Bible are divinely inspired due to their precision
accuracy.

   Enclosed are just seven prophecies illustrated by the Christian Apologetics Research
ministry. These prophecies were written about the messiah in the Old Testament, and
fulfilled by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. In total Christ has fulfilled over one
hundred prophecies. Would a man be able to choose his genealogy and be willingly born
to the House of David? This prophecy was written approximately six hundred years in
Jeremiah 23:1 before being fulfilled in Luke 3:23-31. A prophecy about being born of a
virgin was written approximately seven hundred years in Isaiah 7:14 before being
fulfilled in Matthew 1:18-25. Could a man be able to choose to be born in the city of
Bethlehem? This prophecy was written approximately seven hundred years in Micah 5:2
before being fulfilled in Matthew 2:1. In Psalm 2:6 an Old Testament prophet wrote he
shall be a king written approximately 3000 years ago before being fulfilled in
Matthew 27:37. A prophecy about his side being pierced was written approximately five
hundred years in Zechariah 12:10 before being fulfilled in John 19:34. A prophecy that
stated he would be rejected by his own people was written approximately seven hundred
years in Isaiah 53:3 before it was fulfilled in John 7:5. A crucifixion prophecy was
written approximately 3000 years ago in Psalm 22:1, and hundreds of years before the
institution of crucifixion was even known. This prophecy was fulfilled in Luke 23:33.
These are just a few examples, hopefully you get the point, and there are hundreds of
specific prophecies in the Bible. Theoretically I guess I could outline all of the hundreds
of detailed and specific prophecies in the Bible, but this essay is long enough as it is any more and I might as well write a book.

   “The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks Moody
Press, 1963 to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner
says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, ‘we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017. That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man.” (Slick)

   “Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, ‘we find the chance that any one man
fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10157, or 1 in
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 1079. It should be quite
evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident.” (Slick)

   Christ fulfilled over one hundred Old Testament prophecies alone by the resurrection.
Thomas Arnold, Professor of History at Rugby University in Oxford England states, “I
know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better, fuller evidence
of every sort than the great signs that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”
(Mcfarland 117)

   Many non Christian writers wrote in accordance with the Synoptic Gospels. Flavius
Josephus who lived from 37 A.D -97 A.D. was the court historian for Emperor Vespasian
he wrote, “And there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is necessary to
call him a man, for he was a doer of paradoxical works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure, and many Jews on the one hand and also many of the Greeks on the other he drew to himself. This man was the Christ. And when, on the accusation of some of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first loved him did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, the divine prophets having related both these things and countless other marvels about him. And even till now the tribe of Christians, so named from this man, has not gone extinct.” (Kirby)

   One of the strongest arguments for the resurrection in my opinion is the secular non
Biblical narratives that comply with the synoptic Gospels. Even the enemies of
Christendom like Roman Historians, the Jewish Talmud document a similar Resurrection
narrative. So I think that this is compelling evidence that they were telling the truth.
Moreover, the synoptic Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke and John virtually tell the same
Resurrection account with a little divergence in their stories which would rule out
collusion. In the first century the Roman writer Phlegon wrote in his chronicles, “Jesus,
while alive was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited
the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails?”
(Geisler 307)

   Before the resurrection during Christ’s trial the apostles abandoned Jesus. Obviously
they knew that the Hebrew Scriptures taught that their messiah would be a might king
and vanquish Israel’s enemies. To them their alleged God in human form Christ failed
miserably was ostracized, humiliated, and defeated and hung dead on a cross. All hope
for them was lost; they abandoned Judaism their religion and now under persecution
feared for their lives until the resurrection. This man who claimed to be God and gave
prophecies to his own death and resurrection was standing there now before them, and
their hope was restored. This was the man the Old Testament Prophets wrote about the
messiah because he came thru with his claims that he would conquer death after three
days. After that Christianity spread like wildfire across the ancient land. These once
defeated and discouraged Disciples of Christ now passionately spread the Gospel of
Christ without any regard for their lives because they knew that they had the truth.
Ultimately all of the original apostles died as martyrs for their faith with the exception of
John who was exiled to the island of Patmos. These apostles suffered some of the most gruesome deaths in history after enduring unspeakable tortures. They forsake their lands, their heritage and ultimately the question comes up would someone be willingly to die for a lie? Also some questionable transformations of people like Saul the Pharisee and staunch persecutor of the early Christians who claimed to have an experience with God on the road to Damascus. This anti Christian persecutor is suddenly transformed into Paul the greatest theologian of the Christian faith. Who helps spread Christianity throughout most of the ancient lands, and ultimately dies a martyr for Christianity. This doesn’t seem to make any sense, along with the transformation of James Jesus’ brother. James doubted his brother’s claims and was against him and mocked him then after the resurrection he becomes the leader of the church dying a martyr’s death according to the Historian Josephus. These men were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ like they said that they were, this is the only logical explanation for their willingness to die gruesomely as martyrs and the rapid expansion of Christendom. Moreover, even historical references secular and Biblical accounts tell us of the fact that Christ’s body was never found.

   “Simon Greenleaf, founder of Harvard School of Law, after thorough investigation of
whether or not Christ rose from the dead states, ‘It is therefore impossible that the
disciples could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus
actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact…The resurrection of
Christ is the most verifiable fact of ancient history.” (Mcfarland 124)

   The next argument I would outline for God’s existence is objective Moral Absolutes.
There are certain absolute moral laws that everyone must agree upon that are true
regardless of your worldview. Objective moral absolutes like it is wicked to flog to death
a newborn, or anyone for that matter, conduct child sacrifices, commit slavery, and
condone child molestation to name a few. Well where do these objective moral laws
come from? Why do these laws seem to be written on our hearts regardless of whether
you believe in God or not? Why do we have a conscience? Why does our conscience
convict us when we are committing wrong acts? I don’t believe that it is rational to make the inference that these laws seemed to evolve to our order because it was beneficial to our species. I would say that there are objective moral absolutes that they do exist, and if they do exist then God must exist, otherwise relativity sneaks in and you’re free to interpret on what is right and wrong, good and bad according to your own biases. For example, the homosexual movement always preaches tolerance, tolerance to
believe in any sexual truth according to how you feel. If it feels good then by all means
do it. According to them there are no universal moral standards in which everyone must
agree upon. Unfortunately, without a moral standard then practices lead to relativism,
because your truth can be different then my truth. Although, we know that there is only
one objective truth like the truth of gravity. Two people can both jump off a building to
test the theory of gravity regardless of how one person feels makes no difference both
people will fall regardless.

   Most people would agree that child molestation is an abomination, wickedly evil
regardless of your worldview. Yet, during any gay rights parade the homosexual
movement is forced to let NAMBLA, North American Man Boy Love Association also
march in their parade because they wouldn’t want to be associated with the intolerant
conservative religious right. They wouldn’t want to discriminate on someone’s sexual
truth, but NAMBLA’s truth is an organization that encourages pedophilia! So with no
objective moral standard the homosexual movement is forced to condone pedophilia. I
myself would rather be labeled as an intolerant fundamentalist Christian than endorse,
and support pedophilia.

   In more recent times, Princeton professor and Darwinist Peter Singer has used
Darwinism to assert that, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a
dog, or a chimpanzee.” (Geisler 190) Although, when the relativist making the statement
is involved the standard changes drastically. Would the professor still defend this position if his newborn was on the chopping block? Singer is also notorious for justifying bestiality, because if were all evolved animals sharing common ancestry anyway then why not? So here is another great example to illustrate that when there is no objective moral standards a man if free to choose his own moral standards subjectively according to his own biases.

   According to these morally bankrupt authors Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer rape is,
“a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage,”
just like, “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.” (Geisler 191) Would
these despot authors still defend their position if their wives, or daughters were going to
be raped? Was Hitler or Bin Laden wrong in mass murdering? Although, who are we to
argue and judge what is right and wrong if morals are subjective according to everyone’s
individual biases? Maybe mass murder was their subjective moral truth according to their own subjective biases, because there are no objective moral absolutes according to some relativists.

   I’m not making the claim that all atheists are immoral, and Christians have better
morals. In fact the Biblical message is exactly opposite and preaches that everyone is
inherently evil especially Christians. It teaches that our alleged righteousness is like filthy
rags to God, and no one is good not even one. Whenever I read the book of Genesis and the Old Testament for that matter I become angry at all the despot, immoral, poor excuses that there were of religious people. Yet, that is the Biblical message the Old Testament confirms how morally destitute the early Hebrews were, and their need for redemption, and a savior. Christians also throughout history have created some of the most unspeakable horrors to mankind like the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Manifest Destiny, and so on and so forth. I honestly am very ashamed of all of them, and they have certainly given atheists justification not to believe in Christianity. Although, I would
argue that these people really were not good examples of orthodox Christianity, if they
can be considered Christians at all. Paraphrasing Christ regarding Christians he said that
you would know them by their fruits meaning their actions and how they conducted
themselves. These historical liberal and morale bankrupt Christians didn’t hold to the
Biblical mandate. Therefore, they are poor examples of orthodox Christianity.

   Deep down in our hearts if were honest we know that objective moral absolutes do
exist. It seems more logical to make the inference that God is the moral law giver like he says he is then come to some atheistic conclusion that moral laws came about by random, blind, chance processes over billions of years. The Darwinian explanation seems equally implausible that moral laws would seem to just evolve to our order as a species because we suddenly needed them to further the gene pool. Therefore, I would argue that absolute objective moral laws do exist because our conscience convicts us of these laws. The conclusion would logically follow that God is the moral law giver.

   These are some to the reasons why I think Christianity is true. Christianity is the only
religion that supports the scientific truth that the universe is finite. Every other religion
gives an infinite account to the universe. Christianity is the only religion rooted in
accurate history confirmed over and over by archaeology. God’s unique signature can be
the only conclusion reached in regards to prophecies that have been fulfilled. Christianity
also gives a logical interpretation and rational explanation for the creation of the universe, complexity and design of structures, and the origins of man. Moreover, the tenants of Christendom offer a viable moral standard unequal to any other world view, or philosophy because if God did create us in his own image then he ought to have the blue prints which instruct us how to govern our lives properly. Most importantly a Theistic Worldview succeeds in answering life’s toughest questions while Darwinian Evolution’s interpretation fails miserably. Questions like: Who am I? Why am I here? Is there any purpose in life? Is there any hope for the future?

   Regarding Darwinism I find that when observing the evidence in my opinion there is a
great extrapolation on the facts. I certainly believe in microevolution small incremental
changes in a species because that is proven and can be observed and empirically tested. I don’t believe in macroevolution the inference that a kind of animal like a fish can morph itself into a reptile over millions of years because this phenomenon hasn’t been observed and empirically tested. A few years back Judge Overton set the rules of science as follows, “It is guided by natural law. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law. It has to be testable against the empirical world. Its conclusions tentative that is not necessarily the final word and it must be falsifiable.” (Johnson 114)

   Darwinian Evolution fails on two counts because macroevolution is not testable against the empirical world. Most importantly Darwinian Evolution will never be falsifiable
because whatever evidence is brought against the theory like for example a lack of
transitional fossils then some explanation will be presented even if it contradicts the basic tenants of the theory like Punctuated equilibrium to explain away the lack of transitional fossils. I’m certainly aware that is how science works through trial and error, but our liberal society and the scientific establishment with its materialistic worldview have a commitment, a commitment to materialism. According to imminent Biologist Richard Lewontin the alternative is unacceptable, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its
extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a
commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on
the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin)

   Don’t get me wrong I disagree with the God of the Gaps method to explain away any
evidence we cannot understand and conveniently insert the hand of God as a lazy
explanation. Although in some cases I can’t understand how the explanation isn’t by
God’s hand. For example, one human has billions of cells in his body. One single cell has the genetic information equivalent to approximately thirty encyclopedias. I fail to see
how the human body doesn’t have intelligent design implications.

   Certainly looking at the evidence of fossils, homology, molecular biology, genetics, and
so on and so forth one can make a strong inference for common ancestry. Although,
every argument in favor of common ancestry there is a strong counter argument for a
common designer based on deductive reasoning and logic. Moreover, any evidence
regarding common ancestry should be looked at very critically because of the numerous
examples in history of some blatantly dishonest militant evolutionists who would lie,
cheat, and steal in order to justify the tenants of evolution. Fossil hoaxes like Peking man, Nebraska man, Java man and so on and so forth.

   In 1874 a zoologist by the name of Ernst Haeckel’s made some infamous drawings of
different animals being compared side to side in their embryological stages. These
drawings were celebrated by Darwin himself as proof of his evolutionary theory. The
only problem is that these drawings that Haeckel made up were purposely fabricated to
justify common ancestry. Now you’re probably thinking how typical this is of a theist to
bring up a logical fallacy Straw Man argument easy for him to knock down right? No
actually the only reason I am bringing up these archaic drawings that have been know to be fraudulent for over one hundred years is because they are still being taught in our
classrooms today! Unfortunately, just recently at San Diego City College I was taught
these fraudulent drawings as justification for common ancestry in my Biology class.
Moreover, the dishonorable Ernst Haeckel’s embryos are still being use in our current
science textbooks. Which makes you wonder if fraudulent drawings are still being taught
by our biologists willfully continuing to teach this materiel knowing that it is fraudulent
then perhaps the evidence for common ancestry isn’t as strong as we are all led to
believe?

   “Many Darwinists are scurrying around on their blogs and at movie screenings, trying
to rewrite history by claiming that Haeckel’s embryo drawings were never used in
modern textbooks. In a contradictory claim, some then concede that modern textbooks
have used the drawings but argue that Haeckel’s work was only cited to provide some
historical context to evolutionary theory—they assert that Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings
have not been used to promote evolution in modern textbooks. They are wrong on both
counts.” (Luskin)

   Darwinism teaches that simple celled animals over long periods of time and small
incremental changes will eventually construct complex animals. Even though the
Cambrian Explosion refutes this idea because basically we have most of the major phyla
fossilized appearing fully formed in the geologic column with no evidence of any
intermediate forms linking any of them. In many textbooks the Cambrian Explosion isn’t
even mentioned because it is contradictory to the Darwinian dogma. Perhaps a few lines
might be mentioned then back to the standard mantra definition of simple to more
complex over long periods of time. “The single greatest problem which the fossil record
poses for Darwinism is the ‘Cambrian explosion’ of around 600 million years ago. Nearly
all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period without a trace of the evolutionary
ancestors that Darwinists require.” (Johnson 54)

   “In any case, if single celled creatures gave rise to the vast array of complex
invertebrates which abruptly burst upon the scene, and nearly three billion years
intervened between the origin of life and this ‘Cambrian explosion’ of complicated
invertebrates, we must find the record of that evolution somewhere in the rocks of the
Precambrian. Ever since Darwin the rocks have been intensely searched for this record,
but to evolutionists the results have been agonizingly disappointing. Nowhere on this
earth –neither on any continent nor on the bottom of any ocean have we been able to find the intermediates between single celled organisms and the complex invertebrates.
Wherever or whenever we find them, right from the start jellyfish are jellyfish, trilobites
are trilobites, sea urchins are sea urchins.” (Gish 55) Simple deductive reasoning would
imply that if these earliest animals don’t have any intermediates or share common
ancestry then neither do we. Therefore, I think that this deficit should be reconciled
before arguing about any alleged transitional fossils. Moreover, there is a vast Grand
Canyon of differences between modern humans and primates, which allegedly are our
closest related common ancestor. Even Paleontologists are divided on the fossil record
when considering which fossils are considered human like and which fossils are

considered ape like.

   Recently with the mapping of the human and chimp genome that can be compared side by side scientists have found fundamental differences between both species. For many years evolutionary scientists and teachers have pointed out the proof of 98-99.9 %
similarity in DNA between chimps and humans. Dr. DeWitt an associate professor of
biology at Liberty University illustrates the differences stating, “The use of percentages
obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are
single base pair substitutions. This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it
represents 35 million mutations! But that is only the beginning, because there are 40–45
million bases present in humans and missing from chimps, as well as about the same
number present in chimps that is absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are
called ‘insertions’ or ‘deletions’ because they are thought to have been added in or lost
from the sequence. This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million.
However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40
million separate mutation events that would separate the two species.

   To put this number into perspective, a typical page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such full pages of text to equal 40 million letters! So the differences between humans and chimpanzees include 35 million DNA bases that are different, 45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and 45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human.” (DeWitt)

   I find it extremely difficult to believe that our early ancestors that diverged from
apelike creatures just suddenly needed to walk upright, and throw on some clothes for
style. He suddenly had the need to develop language and culture to further the gene pool. Then over time he suddenly found it biologically suiting to develop morals, ethics, and notable altruistic qualities. Over time he suddenly felt the need to create wonderful
masterpieces of art, poetry, and literature. One day he felt the need to build skyscrapers,
and rockets that have the capacity to fly to other planets. He suddenly had the need to
develop philosophy and religion that contemplate his own being which distinguishes him
from the animal kingdom. Not to even mention that animals have biological limits which
would interfere with their alleged morphing capabilities and with the vast differences
between man and ape there would be an incomprehensible amount of new genetic
information that would be needed. Therefore, 98-99.9 % similarity in DNA doesn’t seem
very logical to make that inference. Although, I guess, “over billions of years anything
goes” is the usual regurgitated mantra were all led to believe, but that is not a scientific
statement because it can’t be empirically tested that is a statement that belongs in a
humanities class not a science class.

   These are some reasons why I disagree with Darwinism’s claim of common ancestry,
and macroevolution. The scientific method is a set the ground rules and every scientific
theory should follow those tenants. Darwinian Evolution doesn’t deserve some special
allowance it also must abide by those tenants to be considered relevant science. If the
scientific method requires empirical and measurable evidence then we should be able to
see creatures morphing into new creatures. At the very least see creatures alive in some
intermediate state. Evolutionists have long postulated that there are many intermediate
creatures between every species, and they can make a picture perfect phylogenetic tree
showing all of the alleged creatures who share common ancestry. Although, I would
argue that these alleged sequences of creatures are inferences, and hypothesis because no one has every seen any of them morph into new kinds. This phenomenon should be able to happen if this hypothesis is to be considered science according to the materialist’s ground rules. Scientific observations must be able to be measured empirically, and repeated over and over, but this doesn’t happen. I’m certainly not making the claim that I have disproven evolution, but there is too much contradicting evidence for my allegiance! Therefore I don’t believe we share common ancestry, but we are made as a special creation in God’s image separate from the animal kingdom. Although, I guess it depends on your world view and how you choose to interpret evidence. Unfortunately, if you are so entrenched in your worldview unable to analyze the pros and cons of you’re beliefs then you are not a critical thinker.

   Critical Thinking is looking at both sides of the story and making a rational decision
based on the evidence trying to not be biased. According to Ruggiero, “How you can tell
when bias is hindering your evaluation of evidence? Look for one or more of these signs: You approach your evaluation wanting one side to be proved right. You begin your
investigation assuming that familiar views will prove correct. You look at evidence that
supports the side of the issue you favor and ignore evidence that opposes it. You rate
sources by how favorable they are to your thinking rather than the reliability and the
quality of their research. You are nitpickingly critical of evidence for views you oppose
and uncritical of evidence for views your favor. When you encounter evidence that
opposes your bias, you begin arguing against it, often before you have completed
examining it.” (Ruggiero 73)

   Have you ever thought about your worldview? Students are taught in High school and
college that you are a cosmic accident the byproduct of primordial slim evolved over
millions of years. You have evolved to your order and share common ancestry with
animals. This indoctrination can have a devastating effect on how you view yourself, live
your life, and how you will treat others. What you believe ultimately determines how you
behave. The late infamous cannibal and mass murder Jeffrey Dahmer articulates my point
quite well stating, “If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—
then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable
ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth,
that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it,
there is nothing…” (Dahmer)

   Moreover, with the Atheistic Worldview why would any student ultimately worry
about being accountable to anybody? Why not just come to school heavily armed and kill everyone? At least that was the message I took from Eric Harris one of the columbine shooters who wore a shirt that said Natural Selection as he mowed down his peers in cold blood. These cowardly, immorally bankrupt teenagers were taught that there is no ultimate meaning, or purpose in life. Humans are the bastard offspring of creatures that walked on all fours and salivated on each other, there is no innate dignity. One day they decided to strategically plant bombs around the school kill thirteen people and injure twenty four before blowing their heads off. That is one significant difference that a Theistic World view offers meaning for your life, and hope for the future. Christianity also offers purpose, and value because if you are God’s child then you are made in the very image of God. Now I am by no means making assumptions that you will become a mass murdering cannibal, student terrorist, or commit genocide if you prescribe to this evolutionary world view. Moreover, I am not making the argument that atheists are immoral, and have no purpose or meaning in life. I am only illustrating examples of how potentially dangerous this worldview can be due to the tenants of the doctrine that is being taught. On the flip side of the coin you can make the same argument against liberal Christianity and illustrate how some radicals in their faith show how dangerous their Theistic Worldview can be. Although, I would argue that these alleged liberal and radical Christians are not following the tenants of orthodox Christianity, so they would be a very poor example of traditional, principled, authentic, “God fearing” Christians.

   In conclusion, it is not one argument that I find compelling for the existence of God, it is all of these arguments taken collectively for Christianity collaborating together in
harmony. In fact there is more than enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt
supporting the existence of God, manifested in the Christian worldview. I have done the
research and think it is important to be able to logically defend your beliefs, and analyze
both sides of the argument. For many years now I have read many books by Theists,
Atheists, Creationists, and Evolutionists and have reached my conclusions based on
logical syllogisms, deductive reasoning, and critical thinking. What I have found is that
the Evolutionary Theory, and Atheistic worldview is very extrapolated, and in many
cases militantly dishonest.

   The late esteemed Evolutionary Biologist, Professor William Provine from Cornell
University sums up the atheistic evolutionary worldview by stating, “Let me summarize
my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no
gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.” (Stein) In my opinion that sounds like to grim, pointless, depressing,
insignificant and pitiful existence for me to comprehend. Moreover, it is contrary to what
Archeology, Biology, Geology, Physics, History and the natural world has shown in my
opinion clearly and unmistakably. Furthermore, if we are God’s children and conform
our lives to Christ’s teachings then as Romans Chapter Eight verse Thirty Seven states,
“in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” God
willingly and lovingly created us in his own image, he created us for a purpose to have
value, and meaning, that is why I resolutely believe and choose Christianity. Therefore, if
you want God in your life you must take the first step, believe in him, repent and confess your sins, and seek him with all your heart. “For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I will be found of you, saith the Lord” (Jeremiah 29:11 King James Version) You are welcome and invited to accept the truth, Jesus Christ is the truth, or you are free to believe in a caustic, putrid, morally bankrupt lie. Think about the consequences of your actions, maybe if our students were taught a less incorrigible theory there would be less violence in our schools because ultimately what you believe determines how you act, behave, and treat others. “If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough the people will
believe it.” (Adolph Hitler)

                                              Work Cited

Asimov, Isaac. The Smithsonian Institute Journal. June 1970.
Dahmer, Jeffrey. Dateline NBC with Stone Phillips. Nov. 29, 1994.
Davies, Paul. The Edge of Infinity. New York, Simon and Schuster. 1981.
Dawkins, Richard. The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution.
Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston MA. 2004.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. W.W. Norton & Company. 1997, pg. 5.
DeWitt David. Chimp genome sequence very different from man. September 5, 2005. 26
Apr 2009. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0905chimp.asp>
Geisler, L Norman, Turek, Frank. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Crossway
Books, Wheaton Illinois. 2004.
Gish, Duane. Evolution: The fossils still say no! El Cajon, California. Master Books.
1995.
Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic, Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos. New York,
William Morrow, 1988.
Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial. Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1993.
Kirby, Peter. 2001, Early Christian Writings, Testimonium Flavianum, 9 July 2007,
<http://www.earlychristianwritings.com>
Lewontin, Richard. Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books,
January 9, 1997.
Mcfarland, Alex. The 10 Most Common Objections To Christianity. Regal Books.
Ventura California, 2007.
Penzias, Arno. New York Times article. Quote. March 12, 1978.
Privileged Planet. Dir. Lad Allen. Scientists: Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Richards, Bijan
Nemati. DVD. Regency Publishing, Inc. 2004.
Ruggiero, Vincent. Beyond Feelings a Guide to Critical Thinking. McGraw-Hill
Publishing, 8th edition, 2008.
Slick, Matthew. Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. Prophecy, the Bible and
Jesus. 2008. 27Apr 2009. <http://www.carm.org/christianity>
/bible/prophecy-bible-and-jesus>
Stein, Ben. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. William Provine Quote, Studio: Premise
DVD, Release 2008.
The Holy Bible: King James Version. Vereeniging RSA: Christian Art Publishers, 2019