Communities

Home | Media | Features | Communities |ZOL Info

Christian Topical Library

Philosophic and Scientific Evidence
for a Creator
by Joshua Orozco

The validity of the theory of biological evolution and natural selection has been a source of debate for many theists throughout the twentieth and now the twenty-first century. Due to biological evolution's general acceptance within the scientific community, there has been serious pressure for many Christians to either abandon their belief in God and a conservative creation account for the universe;¹ attempt to modify their theistic beliefs according to the truth of biological evolution; or continue in, what is viewed by the scientific community as, their naive and irrational views about God and creation. However, not only does a creationist account of the universe provide a respectable and intelligent alternative to biological evolution, but in light of the arguments for a theistic creationist account for the universe there are certain problems that a biological evolutionary theory cannot account for.

In this article I will attempt to present these problems for a biological evolution view for our universe through two areas of study: 1) Science, through the scientific evidence for the expansion rate of our universe. 2) Philosophy, though the Cosmological Argument for God's existence, and an argument from consciousness.

Biological Evolution

In order to better understand the issue it is necessary for us to get clear what exactly we mean by "biological evolution." According to one college text book, "biological evolution is a change over time in the genetic composition of members of a population. Changes that take effect over a small number of generations constitute microevolution. Changes that take centuries, millennia, or longer to be completed are called macroevolution."² This seems to be a very broad definition of biological evolution. For the purposes of this piece, we will take microevolution to be any sort of change over time within the lower categories of biological classification (e.g. Genus and Species). This sort of change is undeniably and easily observed throughout our lives. "Lower categories of biological classification" refers to observations made when we look around and see different kinds of people with different skin color and different eye color, and with other various adaptations; we will consider these variations microevolution. In speaking of macroevolution we mean to include all naturally occurring change in the higher levels of biological organization (e.g. Phyla and Kingdom). This is the change from one organism into another. Whereas the variation of skin color is an example of change within a given type of organism, macroevolution occurs between types of organisms; for example the evolving of a monkey to a human would be an example of macroevolution. This sort of macroevolution is thought to take place via naturally occurring mechanisms such as natural selection and random mutations; and through these mechanisms all known species and classes of life have emerged through one common ancestor.

Although all this is crucial to understanding the issue at hand, one must be sure to emphasize that this is intended to be a completely natural worldview. There is absolutely no supernatural force (for example the active work of God) guiding this theoretical process;³ rather it is the result of what can be called the analogy of the "blind watch-maker," which is a very naturalistic worldview. Imagine the impossibility of a blind man building a watch. As a result of this naturalistic assumption, the evolutionist is committed to the view that the universe is all there is and all there ever has been; more specifically, that the universe is eternal, with no beginning and no end.

Scientific Evidence

When Einstein in 1917 discovered the gravitational theory called the General Theory of Relativity, he assumed the universe was at a static state and homogenous throughout. This assumption was initially incompatible with his newly found theory, and so, as a result, he introduced a constant to help account for these discrepancies. However, this "fudge factor," as it was called, seemed to have no explanation and therefore seemed contrived. In the 1920s, Alexander Freidman and Georges Lemaitre discovered that rather than the universe being static it was actually expanding and thereby eliminating the need for a constant to help account for the General Theory of Relativity. It has been observed that as time passes the distance between two masses that are suspended in space continue to expand.

However, it is important to note that the General Theory of Relativity does not suggest that the two masses are moving within a sort of container which we call space, but rather that the masses are static and it is space itself that is expanding which results in the increased distance between two objects. From this observation of the expanding universe one can extrapolate the implications if one were to go backwards in time and see the condition of the universe. As we continue to go back in time we see that the universe becomes increasingly dense since the expansion rewound now becomes condensation, and this condensing of space continues to some finite past in which the universe arrives at a state of infinite density. This indicates that the universe is not of eternal past but that it has a beginning, and the term "Big Bang" was coined in order to describe the beginning and initial expansion of the universe. At this point, all matter, space and time came into existence, and what we see today is the result of millions and millions of years of expansion. Prior to this point there was nothing (within our physical universe) in existence. Although this in and of itself does not prove the existence of God (in a Judeo-Christian sense), or even that God is responsible for creation, it does point to the fact that our universe had a beginning and that there needs to be something which transcends our universe that is responsible for its inception.

Philosophic Evidence

The Cosmological Argument for God's Existence can be seen as picking up where the scientific evidence in the above consideration has left off. Remember that according to the expansion rate of the universe we have been able determine that in the finite past, the universe began to exist through the event known as the "Big Bang." The Cosmological Argument, when simply stated, claims: 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. This seems to be a valid argument, which means that if the first two premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Therefore, if one is to go about and try to refute the argument they must do so by undermining the truth of one of the first two premises.

The first premise seems to be based on the assumption that something cannot come out of nothing. This principle is grounded in another axiom called the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) and seems to be fundamental in our ability to make sense of the world. The Principle of Sufficient Reason states that for any event that takes place, there are prior events that directly provide sufficient reason for explaining the cause of the event. According to Stephen T. Davis, PSR "is rationally indispensable in that it is presupposed in all rational thought." He goes on to state;

"We encounter thousands of existing things every day, and our assumption always is that there is some reason or explanation why they exist. Suppose one day you were to encounter something unusual?a strange animal, or an automobile completely unknown to you. You would dismiss as absurd any such statement as 'There is no reason why it exists; it's just there, that's all.' That is your commitment to the truth of the PSR would make you reject out of hand any suggestion that the existence of the thing is entirely random or inexplicable, a brute fact. Moreover, it needs to be pointed out that there are no existing things about which we know that they have no explanation for their existence."⁴

By claiming that if something has a beginning then it has a cause, one is merely restating one's commitment to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and this is constantly confirmed in our everyday experience.

The second premise then claims that the universe has a cause. Although this seems to have been shown through the scientific considerations above, there is still more that can be said about this via philosophic inquiry. Another way to demonstrate this premise is from what can be called an "Argument from the Impossibility of an Actually Infinite Number of Things." This argument goes as follows: 1) An actual infinite number of things cannot exist. 2) A beginningless series of events in time entails an actual infinite number of events. 3) Therefore, a beginningless series of events cannot exist.

Now if one commits himself to the view that the universe does not have a cause then one claims that the universe has existed since eternity past and that there have been an actual infinite number of events throughout the universe's history. It is important to note that an "actual infinite" is not something that is going towards infinity (e.g. mathematical limits); but rather, it has reached the state of infinite and is now complete. If we assume that such a complete set is possible, then other problems arise.

Consider a situation in which a hotel has an (actual) infinite amount of rooms and that all the rooms in the hotel are occupied. One night, due to a massive storm that is about to hit the hotel, half of the rooms are vacated. However, if we assume that there is an infinite number of rooms, even though half of the rooms are now empty there are still the same number of people occupying the hotel, namely an infinite. This seems to be an absurd conclusion. The problem with an actual infinite is that the whole is not greater than its parts, and this is exactly what we see in the hotel example, and as a result we see that if an actual infinite actually existed we could cut the set in half, or multiply the set by two, and we would still end up with the same number as what we started with, which is an impossibility in the actual world.

So, now that we have established that an actual infinite cannot exist, it is easy to see that since a beginningless series of events entails an actual infinite number of events, a beginningless series of events could not exist. If this is true then one is epistemically obliged to concede that the universe could not be eternal, and therefore there needs to have been a cause for our universe.

Conclusion

Proving or disproving the theory of biological evolution and natural selection can be a daunting task for anyone. But with the considerations above we can now see that creation is not just some groundless fantasy, but rather has significant support both in the areas of science and philosophy. However, I think that it is important to reemphasize that I have only addressed atheistic evolution. There are many Christians who hold to a theistic evolutionary theory. Although, I don't feel that this is a viable option (I feel that it contradicts Scripture, and that there are other philosophic considerations that it has failed to address; e.g. the problem of consciousness), I have not directly addressed those who believe that God has directed this evolutionary process.⁵ My main concern in this article has been to show that there is heavy evidence in science, especially through the observation of the expanding universe, and in philosophy, through the Cosmological Argument, that the universe has a beginning, and therefore has a creator.

Glossary

1. Adaptations: When we refer to evolutionary biology adaptations are changes in an organisms biological structure (i.e. body, genes, and other physical components), physiological process (i.e. metabolism, heart rate, oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange, etc.), and behavior that assists in its overall survival. When I referred to skin adaptations, I was talking about a particular biological structure that enabled men to better adapt to certain climates around the world.
2. Axiom: An axiom is some proposition that is regarded as overwhelmingly true. When we are referring to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, I described it as an axiom to emphasize the necessity for this sort of principle in any sort of rational investigation and to give added weight to the truthfulness of the principle.
3. Condensation: Simply put, this means to make more compact or dense. So when I condense all my junk into one box, I have engaged in the process of condensation. In regards to the universe, when I say that the universe goes through condensation I mean that the universe is becoming more and more compact as time goes on.
4. Epistemically: This is a philosophical term which refers to a specific branch of study in philosophy; epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justification (i.e. how we acquire knowledge and how those pieces of information are justified). One of the main tools in which we acquire knowledge is our ability to reason. In this paper I used it in the context of one being ?epistemically obliged? to submit to the facts; what I mean is that given the evidence provided and what it means to use our reason appropriately we should acknowledge that sufficient evidence has been provided and to simply refuse the evidence would be irrational and irresponsible.

¹ I understand that a "conservative creation account" may be an ambiguous term since there is still a further debate between a "young earth" and "old earth" creation account; the former claiming to be more conservative than the latter. However, I am using this term to cover both accounts. I will attempt to distinguish between the two later in the article.

² Life; The Science of Biology. Fifth Ed. Purves, Orians, Heller, Sadava. This is one of the many textbooks that I used for the Biology major at the University of California, Los Angeles.

³ For the purposes of this article we will focus on the atheistic view of evolution. I am aware that there is an increasingly popular form of theistic evolution in which God uses his providential control in guiding this natural process. However, this view still holds to the fact that God originally created all things ex nihilo (out of nothing), therefore I will consider this view to be beyond the scope of my article and I will focus on the atheistic view that attempts to undermine any notion of a supernatural created origin to the universe.

⁴ "The Cosmological Argument and the Epistemic status of Belief in God" by Stephen Davis; Philosophy of Religion A Reader and Guide. Ed. William Lane Craig. P. 83-84.

⁵ For a comparison and summary regarding the arguments for and against theistic evolution see; Three views on Creation and Evolution. J.P Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. 1999.