Common sense should tell you life on our planet is too perfect to have come about by chance. A few plants immediately come to mind. Seeds falling from the maple tree look much like helicopters as they drift away on wings and spread out from the tree instead of plunging straight down. Seeds from the dandelion and milkweed plants are attached to fluffy threads, allowing them to glide away in the wind like parachutes and germinate in other areas. Life in the animal kingdom is just as impressive. Take the snake, for instance. As it develops inside an egg, it grows a “tooth” on the tip of its snout. It’s used to cut the shell open, and then it is shed after the snake hatches. Atheists naively shrug all of this off as “evolutionary luck.”
While secular science tries using evolution to explain the physical aspects of nature, it can’t explain the intelligence found in nature. Bees, for example, have a knowledge of geometry that allows them to build their honeycombs with hexagons that have all six angles at precisely 120 degrees. No other shape can hold a given volume of anything while using the least possible building material. Although the bees split up to build in different areas before these hexagons are joined, they fit together perfectly. Atheists say the knowledge to do this is a by-product of genetic accidents, so here’s another “genetic accident” for you to think about: termites are blind, yet some species build towers up to twenty feet (six meters) high with cone-shaped roofs and eaves that push outward to deal with heavy rains. Inside the towers are several floors that have nursery sections, fungus gardens and storerooms for food. The two broad sides of a tower face North and South to control the amount of heat it receives from the sun. The towers even have a sophisticated ventilation system that both regulates the temperature and replaces carbon dioxide with oxygen. This kind of ingenuity can’t be attributed to blind instinct.
Even more damaging to atheism is the innate knowledge of birds. Not only is the average bird born with a blueprint for building a nest, but also with an internal clock and a map of the stars. This was proven in the 1950s when a research ornithologist named E.G.F. Sauer conducted an experiment in Germany. Sauer had about a hundred warblers’ eggs of various species that fly at night and migrate from northern Europe to southern Africa in autumn. He wanted to find out how the birds were learning celestial navigation, and he started the experiment by hatching each egg one spring in its own soundproof box. The chicks were raised in solitary confinement and never taken outside, so there was no possible way for them to learn how to navigate. When it came time for the fall migration, the birds became jittery and wouldn’t relax. Sauer then put them in cages before taking them outside where they could see the night sky for the first time. He observed that although they were trapped in their cages, they clearly wanted to fly. They even aligned their heads and bodies in the direction of their migration route. The only time they failed to do so was when clouds or something else blocked their view of the stars. They were then individually placed in a planetarium where each one could only see artificial stars. They reacted to the planetarium as if it was the genuine night sky and headed in the direction of the very same stars.
The birds were next given course problems to test their navigation abilities. Some of them were tested by having the stars arranged to look the way they would from Siberia, and the birds reacted by heading westward to get back on course. The sky was then changed to look the way it would in America, and they again turned to get back on course, which was eastward this time. Evolution can’t explain what gave these birds their knowledge of astronomy, nor can it explain how they knew the time of year when they were kept inside and isolated from the seasonal changes of the outside world. Atheists have argued that the birds had this knowledge passed on to them from previous generations, which is tantamount to saying children in the future will inherit enough knowledge to make school unnecessary .
In the early 1800s the French biologist Jean B. Lamarck thought he could explain how giraffes got their long necks. He believed a lifetime of stretching their necks to eat leaves high up in trees would cause their necks to grow longer, and this trait of a long neck would be passed on to offspring. He theorized that each generation would have longer necks, and he called this an “acquired characteristic.” This theory has been debunked by modern genetics, so scientists today reject it. All of an animal’s traits come from preexisting information in the genes. It’s now an established fact of science that NOTHING acquired in an animal’s lifetime can be passed on to offspring, meaning there is no such thing as inheriting knowledge that was acquired by ancestors. Knowing this, you must come to the realization that the only explanation for birds being born with a clock and a map of the stars is that they were created with this information.
The alternative to creationism is that life arose from nonliving chemicals. A chemistry professor named Stanley Miller tried proving this in 1952 by producing amino acids from chemicals. Although amino acids are found in living things, they are lifeless by themselves. They were also put together in a machine under the control of a chemist, who later admitted that what he did could not have been done by chance outside of a laboratory. And even though a chemist with the right equipment can make amino acids, there’s not a chemist in the world who can create life (despite numerous attempts). Unyielding as they are, secular scientists maintain that life came from chemicals sloshing around in a primordial soup. They’ll say, “After a very long time of this, surely the chemicals would have eventually generated life.” To them I ask, “If a tornado continually blew around spare parts in a junkyard for millions of years, would a vehicle eventually be assembled?” The atheistic doctrine for how life began is that the sloshing around of chemicals formed an organism with a complicated genetic code that would allow it to reproduce. This extremely ignorant theory goes against the scientific fact that life can come only from life.
Supposing life really did arise by itself and become what it is today, it had to have happened on a privileged planet such as ours. Earth contains all of the elements needed for life and rotates in a time frame that prevents extreme temperatures. Its magnetic field and ozone layer protect life from the radiation that would ordinarily break down organic molecules. Its size is large enough for its gravity to keep oxygen in our atmosphere, but not large enough to still have the poisonous gases that atheists claim the early atmosphere had. Speaking of the atmosphere, it is 21% oxygen, allowing us to breathe easily. But if it were 25% or more oxygen, a single fire could likely spread to cover the whole Earth. (Saltpeter is gunpowder’s main ingredient because it decomposes and yields oxygen when heated, causing the powder to burn with quick explosiveness.) Only certain kinds of stars of certain sizes are capable of sustaining life. Our sun is one of them, and we happen to be just the right distance from it.
The expansion of scientific knowledge keeps making it more difficult to claim our existence is a cosmic fluke. In his 1980 book Other Worlds, British physicist Paul Davies calculated that if the strength of gravity were changed either way by one part in a ten followed by a hundred zeros, life could not exist anywhere in the universe. (In case you don’t understand the magnitude of a ten followed by 100 zeros, consider the fact that the estimated number of atoms in the universe is a ten followed by 80 zeros.) To get out of this and other predicaments, atheists have argued that there are an infinite number of universes, and therefore the odds are that one of these universes has the right conditions for life (we’re in that universe). This kind of argument doesn’t work in the real world. If it did, a rape suspect could explain away his semen being at the crime scene by saying he’s in a universe in which someone else shares his DNA. After all, it’s far more probable for two unrelated people to have the same DNA than it is for the strength of gravity to be what it is by chance.
It’s incredible that atheists say the burden of proof lies with creationists, when they should be the ones having to explain how order and design could have emerged without a creator. If there were no records for Mount Rushmore’s creation, they just might expect someone to prove the faces carved into it aren’t the result of erosion. Unless it can be proven otherwise, everything that appears to have been created should be accepted as having a creator. Atheists would call me crazy if I expected them to prove to me that a computer had a creator, yet their “accidental” brain is more complex than any computer in existence. “Unsurprisingly, neuroscientists and computer engineers are hard at work attempting to duplicate the fast-acting, power-saving mechanics of our brain.” (“Brain Power,” in Popular Science, February 2011, p. 41) If you challenge atheists with this, or some other scientific evidence for a Creator, many of them just resort to making jokes about you believing in a “magical sky daddy.” Whenever they do this, it becomes apparent that joking is the only strategy they have left.
Copyright © 2011