Christian Apologetics Study



For many years, Darwinism has been portrayed as a proven fact of science within the liberal news media, the academic community, and the secular scientific community. Uninformed people will incorrectly assume that persons who reject Darwinism are uneducated, anti-science, and completely irrational. However, today more critics of Darwinism can be found among scientists who reject supernatural creation. There are many publications by such scientists questioning and outright debunking the major principles of evolution.  This narrative highlights the comments by secular scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism.


According to Dr. David Berlinski, the structures of life are complex, and complex structures get made in this, the purely human world, only by a process of deliberate design. An act of intelligence is required to bring even a thimble into being; why should the artifacts of life be different? For many years, biologists have succeeded in keeping skepticism on the circumference of evolutionary thought. However, the burning fringe of criticism is now contracting, coming ever closer to the heart of Darwin’s doctrine” (“The Deniable Darwin,” Commentary magazine, June, 1996). Dr. David Berlinski is an agnostic with a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton and has done post-doctoral work in mathematics and biology at Columbia University. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford, Rutgers, and the University of Paris.


According to Dr. Michael Denton, my fundamental problem with the theory of evolution is that there are so many highly complicated organs, systems and structures, from the nature of the lung of a bird, to the eye of the rock lobster, for which I cannot conceive of how these things have come about in terms of a gradual accumulation of random changes. It strikes me as being a flagrant denial of common sense to swallow that all these things were built up by accumulative small random changes. This is simply a nonsensical claim, especially for the great majority of cases, where nobody can think of any credible explanation of how it came about. And this is a very profound question which everybody skirts, everybody brushes over, everybody tries to sweep under the carpet” (“An interview with Michael Denton,” Access Research Network, Vol. 15. No. 2, 1995). Dr. Michael Denton is an atheist who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from King’s College London. He is the Senior Research Fellow in molecular biology at the University of Otago, New Zealand.


According to Dr. Wolfgang Smith, the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is, in essence, a metaphysical claim. Smith believes that evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb (Teilhardism and the New Religion, 2009, p. 24). Smith is a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University and has been a mathematics professor at MIT, UCLA, and Oregon State University.


According to Dr. Lee Spetner, despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. (“Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue,” 2001, The True Origin Archive). Dr. Spetner earned a Ph.D. in physics from MIT, and worked with the Applied Physics Laboratory of the John Hopkins University from 1951-70.


According to Dr. Colin Patterson, the explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge.  Many scientists will have to admit that in the last 10 yea

rs we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Patterson was the senior paleontologist at the Museum of Natural History in London when he gave this address at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981; cited from White and Comninellis, Darwin’s Demise, 2001, p. 47.)


The Achilles heel of evolution is its failure to explain the origin of information within a universe that functions on conservation and deterioration. The entropy factor and the thermodynamic laws in nature do not allow for an increase in complexity and organization, which can give birth to biochemical information systems. Biological and genetic entropy increase as we move forward in time; therefore, this means that naturalistic evolution is a scientific impossibility. Secular scientists are aware of the real problems with evolution. However, the liberal media, many atheists, agnostics, and pagan philosophers continue to push this dogmatic religious philosophy on populations worldwide. Modern  science will never make its next major step forward until the curse of Darwinism has been lifted from the brows of scientists working in the secular scientific community.




William Paley became famous for his teleological watchmaker argument in the 19th century. According to Paley, if we image we are walking along a beach and we come across a watch. We know that chance cannot make something very complicated and intricate as the watch. No over lapping waves on shore could have created anything like it. Therefore, we must conclude that someone made the watch with skill and care. Now when we consider the universe, we realize that the cosmos is much more complicated than a watch. Thus, it is less likely that chance created the universe. This observation means that there must be an equivalent to the watchmaker such as a Divine Creator and Designer God.

Skeptics such as David Hume challenge Paley’s watchmaker argument by saying we don’t know what made the universe. We know what sort of things watches are and where they came from; therefore, of course watches point to a watchmaker. However, we have no idea what sorts of things create universes. Experience is silent on that history. However, Hume’s argument is decorated with false assumptions. He believes that human beings are not capable of identifying non-human intelligent design. Hume’s argument ignores the fact that observation and experimentation demonstrates that the universe requires a maker because the cosmos is decorated with information, complexity, predictability, and organization.  Modern science has demonstrated that Hume’s argument is simply irrational.

Modern skeptics such as Richard Dwakins believe that Darwinism has overthrown Paley’s watchmaker argument. He argues that Darwin’s evolution theory explains how complex life evolved without a divine engineer. However, this is simply a false assumption because Darwinism cannot explain the origin of information, the origin of life, and transformation of life. Because life is a biochemical self-replicating information system, life could only have originated from Intelligent Design. The laws of nature cannot create life. Natural selection and genetic mutations cannot create new genetic information because that process only facilitates plant and animal variation. Dr. Jonathan Wells and Dr. Michael Behe and many other intelligent design theorists have all demonstrated the impossibility of Darwinism. Today, William Paley’s argument has been restored back to its rational and logical place because of the science of intelligent design.

Intelligent design theory seeks to discovery complex objects that are specified to some pattern. This is the design arguments essence, and we can best detect design when we can exclude some rival hypothesis, resembling Darwinian evolution. Darwinism no longer triumphs over modern design arguments. Darwinism fails to explain the evolution of irreducible complex biological systems naturally and this fact represents the collapse of Darwinism temporary triumph over Paley, and the modern intelligent design argument. While Hume argued that there is insufficient analogy between biological design and human design, his outdated objection cannot withstand Behe and Dembski’s rigorous observations and quantifications for the information produced by an intelligent agent.

 RELATED SOURCES: The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Charles Thaxton in 1984. A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton in 1986. Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson in 1991. Creation Hypothesis, Dean Kenyon in 1994. Reason in the Balance, Phillip Johnson in 1995. Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe in 1996. The Design Inference, William Dembski in 1999. Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells in 2000. The Design Revolution, William Dembski in 2004.




Today an increasing number of science researchers are rejecting Darwinism and evolutionism for the scientific theory of intelligent design because they are convinced that intelligent design offers a better and more scientific explanation than classic Darwinism. The intelligent design theory argues that all living organisms were created and designed by an “intelligent designer.” This narrative highlights the theory’s definition, history, and key persons. In this piece, we discuss the theory’s irreducible complexity and specified complexity arguments.


“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Intelligent design is not scientific creationism because creationism begins with the Holy Scriptures and make scientific conclusion based on the Holy Bible, while intelligent design is based upon the weight of scientific evidence.

Biblical creation science argues that there was a sudden creation of the universe, where space, time, energy, and matter originated from God’s supernatural creative power (Genesis 1:1). Later, God created all living systems on Earth (Genesis chapters 1 and 2).  Mutations and natural selection lack ability to develop all living kinds from single organism.  Changes within the originally created plant and animal kinds occur only within fixed genetic limitations.  There is a separate ancestry for humans and apes. Earth’s geology can be explained by catastrophism, primarily by the occurrence of a worldwide flood.  Earth and living kinds had a relatively recent beginning (6000 or 7,000 years past).

Meanwhile, intelligent design argues that specified complexity and irreducible complexity are reliable indications of design. Biological systems exhibit specified complexity and use irreducibly complex subsystems. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain origin of complexity. Intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of specified complexity and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Intelligent design theorists believe that evidence for design has been observed in cosmology, physics, biology, and molecular biology.  In cosmology, evidence suggests the universe–including all matter, space, time, and energy–came suddenly into existence a finite time ago, contradicting the earlier picture of an eternal and self-existing material cosmos. In physics, evidence has shown that the universe is “finely-tuned” for the existence of life, suggesting the work, as Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle puts it, “of a super-intellect.” In biology, the presence of complex and functionally integrated machines has cast doubt on Darwinian mechanisms of self-assembly. In molecular biology, the presence of information encoded along the DNA molecule has suggested the activity of a prior designing intelligence.


In Europe, intelligent design theory began with the Greek philosophers a few centuries before Christ and some early church fathers in 3rd and 4th centuries after Christ and Rev. William Paley’s natural theology in the early 19th century. Paley argued that a watch is the product of an intelligent watchmaker and not the result of undirected natural processes. Organisms are the product of intelligence. Purposeful design originates from a purposeful designer. An important sign of design is complexity. Paley wrote: “In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there.  Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone?  For this reason, and none other, viz., that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive what we could not discover in the stone, that its several parts were put together for a purpose.”


Modern intelligent design theory began with the work of Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Michael Denton, Dean Kenyon, and Phillip Johnson. They believe that scientifically, Darwinism is an inadequate framework for biology and philosophically, Darwinism is hopelessly entangled with naturalism. Later, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells proposed positive research program wherein intelligent causes become key for understanding the diversity and complexity of life. This collection of philosophers, physicists, astronomers, chemists, biologists, and linguists critiqued Darwinism and promoted the intelligent design theory in the early 1990s.  And Johnson’s Influence leads to 1996 Conference. This conference at Biola University brought scholars from around the world. The world learns of the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC).

When Lehigh University biochemistry professor, Dr. Michael Behe’s 1996 book was reviewed in mainline science journals, Darwinists argued against his scientific conclusions, but they were unable to disprove his facts. Dr. Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity in his book, Darwin’s Black Box. Something is irreducibly complex if it is composed of two or more necessary parts. Remove one part and the function is not just impaired but destroyed.

According to Dr. Behe, a mousetrap is irreducibly complex. “An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can’t catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice. By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional”

Later, Dr. William Dembski publishes The Design Inference in 1999 with the prestigious Cambridge University Press. Dr. Dembski has earned doctorates in philosophy and mathematics from Princeton. Johnson, Behe, Dembski, and others are published widely, exposing the naturalistic bias of science and media, while Darwinists continue to repeat their tired, predictable science vs. religion arguments. Dr. Dembski’s work supported the theory that living organisms are too complicated to be the result of natural processes working independently. Based largely on the theories underlying information theory and concerned with measuring the complexity of structures and information contained in structures. Dr. Dembski’s theory developed the specified complexity argument.

Specified complexity is an information science and mathematical argument proposed by Dr. Dembski and employed by other intelligent design theorists to promote intelligent design. According to Dembski, the concept is intended to formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex. Dembski. Dembski believes that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent, a central tenet to intelligent design which he argues for in opposition to the modern evolutionary theory. The concept of specified complexity is mathematically sound and has been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems, or biology. Specified complexity is one of the two main arguments used by intelligent design science researchers, the other being irreducible complexity.

In Dembski’s terminology, a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by random chance processes. Dembski argues that it is impossible for specified complexity to exist in patterns displayed by configurations formed by unguided processes. Dembski argues that because specified complex patterns can be found in living things, this evidence indicates some kind of guidance in their formation, which is indicative of intelligence. Dembski further argues that one can rigorously show by applying no free lunch theorems the inability of Dawinian algorithms to select or generate configurations of high specified complexity.


Paley’s classic design argument was only from a metaphysical notion for planned perfection, rather than a mathematical specified complexity form. His arguments for design lack the modern day design theorists’ rigor and precision and it had theological associations with classic Christian theism. While this argument is good for a metaphysical proposal, as a technical proposition it failed to withstand Darwin’s scientific mechanism for natural law and random chance. Paley’s arguments failed to dethrone Darwin’s analysis for biological “imperfection,” Darwin’s arguments for “dysteleology,” and the Darwinian mechanism explaining how evolution generated living systems with design appearance.

In the 21st century, we are having a completely different discussion. Intelligent design theory seeks to discovery complex objects that are specified to some pattern. This is the design arguments essence, and we can best detect design when we can exclude some rival hypothesis, resembling Darwinian evolution. Darwinism no longer triumphs over modern design arguments. Darwinism fails to explain the evolution of irreducible complex biological systems naturally and this fact represents the collapse of Darwinism temporary triumph over Paley, and the modern intelligent design argument. While Hume argued that there is insufficient analogy between biological design and human design, his outdated objection cannot withstand Behe and Dembski’s rigorous observations and quantifications for the information produced by an intelligent agent.


The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Charles Thaxton in 1984. A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton in 1986. Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson in 1991. Creation Hypothesis, Dean Kenyon in 1994. Reason in the Balance, Phillip Johnson in 1995. Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe in 1996. The Design Inference, William Dembski in 1999. Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells in 2000. The Design Revolution, William Dembski in 2004.




Stephen William Hawking is a famous British mathematician, astronomer and theoretical physicist whose literature about the universe reveals his atheism. Stephen William Hawking is famous because of his scientific accomplishments along with his books on astronomy and astrophysics, which are all decorated with deep philosophical pronouncements. Stephen Hawking analyzes the irregularities in space and time known as singularities. Hawking’s theories are currently accessible to the public through lectures, books, DVDs, CDs and films. Hawking recent writings and research demonstrates his belief that God was not necessary to create and design the physical universe. Today his atheism is being challenged by elements within the scientific community.


In 1962, Hawking graduated from University College at Oxford University with a bachelor’s degree in physics. In 1966, he received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Cambridge. From 1966 to 1977, he served as a research assistant, taught physics as an instructor, and began to study black holes while moving through several positions at the University of Cambridge. In 1974, he became one of the youngest fellows of the Royal Society, a scientific organization in London.

From 1977 to 1979, Hawking taught physics as a professor at the University of Cambridge. In 1979, he became Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge-the same position once held by Isaac Newton. In 1988, he published “A Brief History of Time,” a general audience book where he explains his cosmological theories in everyday language. His book explains the origin and destiny of black holes, while it attempts to demean God’s role in the creation and design of the physical universe.

Hawking has suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, since the 1960’s. Although he can barely move and no longer speak clearly, his mind remains razor sharp and unaffected by this disease. Hawking’s present objective is a unified field theory that, if successful, will combine quantum mechanics with relativity.


According to his new book, “The Grand Design,” Hawking writes that: “Physics, not the creator, made the Big Bang.” Hawking, who has been described as the most brilliant living scientists, says that M-theory, a form of string theory, is a superior explanation for the origination of the physical creation. In other words, the big bang explosion was due only to gravitational laws and other quantum factors. According to Hawking, since there is a gravitational force, the universe can and will evolve into existence from nothingness. He believes that the undirected evolution of the universe is the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe is here, and why we are here. He states clearly that “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”


However, not all scientists concur with Hawking’s atheism. First, John Lennox, a professor of science and mathematics, argues that Stephen Hawking is wrong because the universe cannot explain itself without God. Second, Lennox says that Hawking’s argument is not new because atheists and agnostics before Hawking have used similar arguments. And third, Lennox argues that the physical laws cannot provide an absolute explanation of the universe’s existence because the laws themselves do not form anything into existence; they are only an explanation of what happens under certain natural conditions.

Furthermore, there are several questions that Stephen Hawking will to answer and explain. First, where did the gravitational force come from? Second, how does the gravitational force generate the amazing complexity and design that we observe? And third, how does M-theory explain the human psyche, which ask what caused the universe into existence, and why does it appear to have design?

Finally, if Hawking does not summon a scientific causation for the gravitational law, then he is saying that the gravitational force is eternal, which goes against the weight of scientific evidence. Bear in mind, there is no hard scientific evidence indicating that the laws of nature, such as the gravitational force, the electro-magnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force, existed eternally. Since the laws of nature came into existence with the universe, then who or what created them? Hawking’s arguments don’t defend either agnosticism or atheism very well because his arguments create more questions than answers. His views are based upon his strong intellectual bias against theism and his irrational love of scientism.


A Brief History of Time; Stephen Hawking; 1988. Astronomy: Stephen P. Maran, Ph.D.; 2000. Astronomy; Christopher De Pree, Ph.D., and Alan Axelrod; 2000. The Handy Space Answer Book; Phillis Engelbert and Diane L. Doplus; 1998. Theories of the Universe; Gary F. Moring, M.A.; 2002. The Grand Design; Stephen Hawking; 2010.




A recent study confirms that the Holy Turin Shroud was made earlier than previously thought. The recent scientific dating techniques should defeat the skeptic arguments against the Holy Shroud’s date and renew faith in Christianity.

Many Christians revere the Holy Shroud as Messiah Yeshua’s sacred burial cloth, while skeptics claim this fabric is a Medieval Fake. The Turin shroud will make another rare display on Television among assertions that it is not a fake because of new scientific research. The Turin Shroud will be shown to the public on television this Easter because the new date for the four-meter-long linen cloth, confirms its power and its enduring spiritual quality and survivability, according to the Guardian.

The Turin Shroud is not a medieval forgery because new scientific dating techniques demonstrate that it existed during the time of Yeshua’s death. The University of Padua’s scientific team in northern Italy dated the shroud to ancient times, around a few centuries before and after Yeshua’s life time. Many Catholics and a few protestant Christians believe that the four-meter-long linen cloth, which shows the impressions of the front and back anatomy of an unshaven man, was used during the burial of Yeshua’s dead body when Messiah was taken down from the cross following his brutal crucifixion around A.D 30, according to the Telegraph.

Because the recent study confirms that the Turin Shroud dates (between 300 BC and AD 200) back to Yeshua’s life time, this evidence will challenge previous arguments saying the linen fabric believed to have Yeshua’s impression was a Medieval Forgery. The cloth is cherished by many Catholics and a few protestant Christians as Messiah Yeshua’s burial shroud, according to the New York Daily News.


The Turin Shroud is probably the most examined Holy Relic in human history. This cloth is made up of ancient linen measuring four meters long. The Shroud’s bloodstained surface is decorated with a negative image of a naked man’s front and back sides. The man appears to have been beaten and later crucified brutally, according to the ancient Roman form of punishment, torture, and execution. The Turin Shroud’s image is consistent with the Gospel accounts and descriptions of Messiah Yeshua’s torture and crucifixion. Many Christians believe Yeshua’s body was wrapped in the Shroud when He was placed in a borrowed tomb in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago.

For centuries, many Christians believed Turin Shroud it to be Yeshua’s burial fabric, the sacred cloth used to wrap his crucified body when he was taken down from the cross. Estern documents record that the cloth existed in France in the mid-1360s, but circumstantial evidence traces it back to Israel during Yeshua’s life time.

Modern Scientific interest in the relic began in 1898. Skeptics believed the images were painted by a skilled Medieval Artists. When photographed the Shrouds images seemed lifelike in their realism. A few experts at that time believed that no artist could have achieved the realism displayed by the photographs. The first major study on the Shroud was made in 1978. Another study determined that the cloth was made in the 14th century and therefore could not have been Yeshua’s shroud in 1988. However, it was later determined that the portion of the Shroud under examination then was from the Medieval era when Shroud was being repaired with cloth from that time. Today, scientists have found conclusive evidence confirming the Shroud’s date by examining the portion of the Shroud that was made around Yeshua’s time. Many Catholics and protestant Christians around worldwide find the shroud worthy of honor and veneration.




A few non-Christians argue that there are no historical evidence proving that Yeshua (Jesus) really lived almost 2000 years ago. This narrative offers evidence for the Yeshua of History.

Within the past few years, non-Christian critics have been arguing that there are no historical evidence proving that Yeshua (Jesus) really lived almost 2000 years ago. However, this belief is based upon their strong intellectual bias against Christianity rather than real evidence because there has always been a mountain of data demonstrating that Yeshua really lived.

Analysis of first and second century sources verify that Yesua was an actual man of history and not a compilation of pagan myths as some critics allege. Although Christian sources are significant in proving Yeshua’s historicity, many non-Christian sources are significant because they had nothing to gain by their admissions. On the other hand, the Christian witness had everything to lose-many paying for their testimony with their lives.


According to orthodox Christian theology, Yeshua is the son of God and the second person of the Holy Trinity; his crucifixion and resurrection paid for all humanity’s sins. His life and ministry are revealed in the four Gospels of the New Testament Christian Scriptures. He was born Jewish in Bethlehem before King Herod the Great’s death around 4 BC, and he died around 30 AD, during the reign of Judea’s Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. His mother, Mary, was married to Joseph, a Nazarean carpenter. During his childhood, we read about one visit to Jerusalem with his parents.

He began his ministry when he was about age 30 where he healed the sick, taught the ignorant, and preached the Kingdom’s Gospel to many. He gathered his disciples in the region of Galilee, and preached the imminent arrival of God’s Kingdom on Earth. His moral teachings are revealed in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John’s writings, where they wrote that his miracles won him a growing number of followers, who believed that he was the promised Messiah. During Passover, he entered Jerusalem riding a donkey, where he shared the Last Supper with his disciples before Judas Iscariot betrayed him by identifying him with the kiss of death to the Roman authorities. After his apprehension and trial, he was condemned to death on charges of blasphemy and political agitation and was crucified, killed, and buried. Three days later his followers found his tomb empty. According to the Gospels, he appeared and spoke several times with his disciples before ascending into heaven.


Evidence for Yeshua’s existence begins with the New Testament Christian Scriptures because the first century narratives contain hundreds of references to Yeshua. Although there are scholars who date the writing of the Gospels to the second century AD, the weight of biblical evidence indicates that Matthew, Mark Luke and John were written before 70 AD because these Jewish writers make no reference to the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem during 70 AD and the siege of Masada during 72 AD.

Even if the Gospels were written during the early second century AD, writings less than 200 years after events occurred are considered very reliable evidences, according to many biblical and secular historians. Furthermore, the majority of biblical and historical scholars argue that Saint Paul’s Epistles were in fact written by Paul in between 50 and 60 AD, less than 40 years after Yeshua’s time on Earth. For many liberal and conservative scholars, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a young man named Yeshua living in Israel during the early first century AD.


Some of the best non-biblical evidences for Yeshua’s existence were derived from first and second century non-Christian sources. These non-Christian sources are significant confirmations about Yeshua existence because the Greek and Roman authors had nothing to gain by their admissions that Yeshua really lived. Some of these sources were Flavius Josephus, Carnelius Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Thallus, and Celsus.


Flavius Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian who provided significant insight into first-century Judaism to the Romans. Josephus is one of the most quoted historians of antiquity by biblical and secular scholars, making him a credible source to the historicity of Yeshua. He wrote about Yeshua’s death, burial, and resurrection. He described Yeshua as miracle worker and healer of the sick. His writing in histories of the Jews says: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”

Furthermore, the Arabic translation of the same passage reads: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” Since the Arabic translations of Josephus’ literary sketch of Yeshua are similar to Josephus’ Latin and Greek portrait of Yeshua, this fact indicates that no forgery was ever committed by an unknown pious Christian writer or editor.


Cornelius Tacitus was a first-century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of six or more Roman emperors. Secular and biblical historians considered him one of the most celebrated historians of ancient Rome. Tacitus confirms the biblical narrative about Yeshua’s execution by Pontius Pilate who governed Judea during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Tacitus writings confirm the biblical narrative about Yeshua. Tacitus also verifies that Yeshua began the Christian faith, Yeshua was put to death by Pilate, Christianity originated in Judea, and Christianity later spread to Rome through the Yeshua’s apostles and evangelists.


Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus was a first-century Roman historian who wrote about the lives of the Roman Caesars along with the historical events surrounding their reigns. He served as a court official under Hadrian and as a historian for the Roman Imperial House. Suetonius records the expulsion of the Christian Jews from Rome, which is mentioned in Acts 18:2 and confirms the Christian faith began with Yeshua.


Pliny the Younger was a first-century layer and writer who admits to torturing and executing Christians who refused to deny Yeshua. Those who denied the charges were spared from death and commanded to worship the Roman gods and curse the name of their Messiah. Pliny addresses his concerns to Roman Emperor Trajan when too many Christian citizens were being put to death because of their refusal to deny their faith.


Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus’ teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.


Thallus was a first century writer who mentions the strange darkness over the Middle East during the Passover Feast when Yeshua was crucified. Thallus tries to dismiss the darkness as a natural solar eclipse, but Julious Africanus argues a solar eclipse cannot physically occur during a full moon due to the alignment of the planets, which has been confirmed by modern astronomers. Furthermore, Phlegon of Tralles, a second century historian, mentions the darkness and attempts to dismiss it as a solar eclipse. He says the event occurred during the time of Tiberius Caesar.


Celsus was a second century Roman writer and devoted enemy of Christianity. He took enormous measures to refute Yeshua’s Divinity, but he never denied Yeshua’s actual existence. Celsus sets himself up for criticism because he imitated the accusations brought against Yeshua by the Jewish religious leaders, which were addressed and refuted in the New Testament Christian Scriptures. Two very significant facts regarding Celsus make him one of the most important witnesses to Yeshua’s existence.

First, although a few secular critics argue that passages about Yeshua were derived from sources decorated with Christian influence, we can accept with absolute confidence this is not the case here with Celsus because of the deep volume of his writings, which were particularly designed to discredit Christianity, along with the argumentative allegations decorating his narrative dismisses this theory completely. Second, the theory that Celsus acquired his information about Yeshua only from Christian sources is completely ridiculous because while he was clearly aware of many Christian sources, Celsus wrote his narrative form a dialogue perspective between a “Jewish Critic” and himself. This fact confirms that he used non-Christian sources.

Finally, the supreme evidence proving that Yeshua did exist is the fact that many thousands of Christians in the first century AD, including the 12 apostles, were willing to experience martyrdom for Yeshua. Many first-century Christians died under the brutality of Roman persecution because they witnessed the crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Yeshua. Therefore, the rapid growth of early Christianity offers confirmation to critics that Yeshua lived, died, and rose from the dead almost 2000 years ago. If Yeshua never existed, historians would have no rational explanation for the origins of Christianity because almost all great religions began with a single charismatic personality.


Bell, Jim, and others; The Bible; Alpha Books, 1999. Butler,PH.D.;Trent C.; Holman Bible Dictionary; Holman Bible Publishers,1991. Geoghegan, PhD, Jeffrey; The Bible; Wiley Publication, 2003. Grimbol, Pastor William R.; The Life of Christ; Alpha Books, 2001. Halley, Henry H.; Halley’s Bible Handbook; Zondervan Publishing House,1965. Jeffrey, PhD, Grant; The Signature of God: Revised Edition; Water Brook Publication, 2010. Miller, Stephen M.; The Complete GUIDE to the BIBLE; Evangelical Christian Publishers Association, 2007. The Devine Evidence (Jesus).




While classic theistic arguments don’t prove God’s existence, they demonstrate why theism offers believers in God a more rational intellectual foundation for building their theistic world view.

Within the past few years, there has been an explosion of atheists apologetics books, such as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, and Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, regurgitating old atheistic dogmas. However, despite the success of these anti-theistic publications, believers in God’s existence, should have no intellectual problem defending their theistic world view because a belief in God’s existence is based on many scientific, logical, and rational theistic arguments, which are supported by many theologians, philosophers, scientists, and intellectuals in history. Although no theistic argument has ever proven the existence of God beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt, the arguments presented in this article demonstrate to readers why theism offers deep thinkers a more rational and intellectual foundation for building their theistic world view through the analysis of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, and the moral argument.


The cosmological argument, developed by St. Thomas Aquinas, offers theistic philosophers effective apologetics because it defends why God is the most rational explanation for the origin of the universe. Although the cosmological argument has many versions, it is the preeminent argument explaining the logical need for the existence of an uncaused first cause for the origin of universe, which has been often used as an argument for the existence of God. The cosmological argument has been referred to as an argument for universal causation, an argument for the first cause, the causal argument, or the argument for the existence of creation. According to Dr. William Lane Craig and other professional theistic philosophers, the best version of this argument is the Kalam cosmological argument, which has its roots in medieval Arabic philosophy and theology. The Kalam argument appears to be very simple, but it is deceptively profound because it answers some atheist questions based on its three basic premises:

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: The universe began to exist. Premise 3: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

This argument indicates the weight of scientific evidence demonstrates that everything which BEGINS to exist must have a cause beyond space, time, energy, and matter; therefore, it is irrational to believe that the universe could have create itself before it came into existence. God, however, never began to exist because God is the creator of time and whatever or whoever caused time to come into existence must be infinite or eternal in existence; therefore, it is not logical to ask the question “who created God?” The atheist question is simply irrational because it falsely assumes that there can be an infinite series of causes and effects before we reach the present moment. The fact is, we can never reach the second point if there is an infinite series of first points. Thus, there is a rational necessity for an uncaused first cause.


The teleological argument offers theistic thinkers rational apologetics because it defends why God is the most logical explanation for the design of the universe. The teleological argument is known as the argument for design and it has many different versions. It points out that a designer must exist since the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their order, predictability, complexity, uniformity, and pattern. The philosophical typical analogy employed in this view is the Watchmaker argument that was made famous by William Paley. The Watchmaker argument has five basic premises:

Premise 1: Human artifacts are products of intelligent design. Premise 2: The universe resembles human artifacts. Premise 3: Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design. Premise 4: But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts. Premise 5: Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.

In the past few years, the teleological argument has gained much support from theistic philosophers, research scientists, and educators supporting the revised theory of intelligence design. Intelligent design theorists argue that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures found in biological systems and that these origins are empirically detectable. Many biological features discredit the standard Darwinian materialistic philosophical explanations because they appear to have hard evidence for complex designed. Since design logically requires an intelligent designer, the appearance of design is cited as convincing evidence for a Supreme Designer. According to some intelligent design theorists, the primary scientific reasons supporting intelligent design theory includes irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and the anthropic principle, which offers more theistic ammunition to teleological arguments.


Although the strength of the ontological argument is not clear to many atheists, rational theists recognize its value because it defends why humanity has a concept of God. The ontological argument is based on human reason and experiences and it has many versions. The ontological argument evolves from the study of being. The early form of this argument originated from St. Anselm in the 11th century A.D. Anselm’s argument for God is based on the idea of necessary existence. He argues that if God is that than which no greater can be conceived, it is better to be necessary than contingent; therefore, God must be necessary. His argument has four basic premises:

Premise 1: God is the entity than which nothing greater can be thought. Premise 2: It is greater to be necessary than not. Premise 3: God must therefore be necessary. Premise 4: Therefore, God exists necessarily.

Many ontological arguments are not used effectively in most theistic circles because the argument appears to ask the question without offering a clear answer as to what God is like, the argument’s subjective appeal is low for atheists, the argument tend to lack hard objective evidence, and the argument makes it difficult to simply defend the idea that God must exist by definition. A person must be really sophisticated in mind in order to understand the profound significance of the ontological argument. Despite its theological complexity and its philosophical intricacy, the ontological argument reveals the question “if people don’t think of things which don’t exist, where did the God concept originate from?” For example, we can think of pink elephants, unicorns, and flying spaghetti monsters, because of the existence of pink, elephants, horses, horns, spaghetti, meatballs, and reptile monsters. However, thinking of new colors that don’t exist in nature requires experiencing a discovery or making an invention of that new color. Therefore, the ontological argument suggests that the God concept was derived from past human experiences when God communicated with humanity in history.


For many theists, the moral argument is the most rational explanation for humankind’s most logical determination of what is right and what is wrong. The moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code because some things are right, while other things are wrong. Many times when we argue about what is right or wrong, we sometimes appeal to a higher law that we assume many people are aware of, believe in, and seek to live by. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawmaker. Since the moral law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawmaker, which appears to be God. One version of the argument runs as follows:

Premise 1: If there are objective moral values then God exists. Premise 2: There are objective moral values. Premise 3: Therefore, God exists.

In support of the moral argument, anthropologists observe that the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization possess a moral code similar to the rest of humanity. While differences exist in every culture, virtues like bravery, love, unselfishness, and loyalty, and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would have evolved differently as many other things that man has invented. Atheism provides no rational answers for the universal code of ethics existing among humanity because it has no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While these anthropological observations don’t disprove atheism, it is a philosophy that should be discarded because the logical outworking of an atheistic belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be truth. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no purpose in life, and no reason for living because our past experiences, our present struggles, and our future dreams would be just a complete meaningless waste of human effort.


For many years, atheists and agnostics attempt to defeats these arguments, but they have been unsuccessful because the arguments are based upon logic, reason, and scientific evidence. The arguments for and against God’s existence have been proposed by scientists, philosophers, theologians, and educators for many generations. The question of God’s existence probably began when the first man or woman ask the metaphysical question “why is there something rather than nothing?” This question began laying the foundation for the cosmological argument for proving causation, the teleological argument for design, the ontological argument for theistic conceptualization, and the moral argument to determine theistic values. We must understand that the existence of God can’t be proven within the limitations of human reason partly because there are no precise definitions for God. Many theistic philosophers characterize God as omniscience, omnipresent, and omnipotent, which are divine attributes that are far beyond their intellectual capabilities. Therefore, although none of these theistic arguments prove the existence of God, they offer critical thinkers four primary theistic arguments that present a more rational foundation for building a theistic world view.


Remember not to fall into the intellectual trap of trying to prove God’s existence absolutely because it is impossible to prove the existence of an infinite God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent when the arguments are derived from the finite limitations of human reasoning. Although theism is clearly more rational than atheism and agnosticism, the best proof for God is faith based on your day to day communion with the Creator. Although these are good theistic arguments, readers should never use these arguments unless they have a thorough understanding of there strengths and weaknesses.


  • Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion; William L. Reese; 1996.
  • Philosophy of Religion Readings; John Hick; 1990.
  • The Case for a Creator; Lee Strobel; 2004.
  • The Reason for God;Timothy Keller; 2008.
  • Kalam Cosmological Argument; Dr. William Lane Craig; 1998.



The scientific method is a tool employed by the scientific community to make discoveries and produce knowledge about the universe. Today it is being utilized to expose neo-Darwinian dogma.

Within the past few years, elements within the scientific community have declared Darwinism to be pseudo-science on the verge of complete collapse within the 21st century because Darwinism is simply inconsistent with the scientific method. Today’s scientific and technological progression have been made possible due to the scientific method, which consist of observation of natural phenomena, hypothesis formulation, experimentation for confirmation and validation of a new scientific theory.

The scientific method is a tool employed by the scientific community to make discoveries and produce knowledge about the universe. The scientific method separates science from faith based attempts to produce real knowledge which many people attempt to advertise as scientific. To understand real science people must learn how the scientific method works, how scientists work, and why science is sometimes superior to other faith based alternatives. The scientific method’s logical steps illustrate two significant science fundamentals.

First, science is primarily limited to the present. Until new technology is invented for time travel, science will never allow a person to analyze data from the past or from the future; therefore, science currently can only analyze present conditions to determine certain phenomena or conditions. An archaeologist can examine artifacts, catalogue them, and make educated guesses using the techniques of historiography, but he or she can never perform a controlled experiment to discern what happened during the past.

Second, the scientific method provides data independent of the scientist’s worldview. A scientist with a theistic belief system will arrive at exactly the same conclusions when analyzing the same data and using the same scientific method as any person with either an atheistic or agnostic believe system. Science does not depend upon what a particular belief system and is, therefore, it is not the sole domain of evolutionists, materialists, and atheists. Therefore, the attempt to cast the debate between evolutionists and intelligent design theorists as science versus religion or fact versus faith is simply ridiculous and ignorant.


Modern Darwinism stands as theory in crisis, according atheist Dr. Michael Denton. Experiments demonstrating how life could originate from non-life in a primordial, pre-biotic soup have all failed leaving evolutionists with no explanation for life’s origins, according to Dr. Jonathan wells. Stanley Miller’s 1953 experiment where he produced a few amino acids is no longer considered to be a confirmation for the naturalistic evolution for life, but this mythology is still being taught by secular academics as proof for evolution, according to agnostic Dr. David Berlinski.

Miller assumed the planet Earth’s primitive atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere that contained ammonia and methane gases but no oxygen. As a chemist, he knew that a reducing atmosphere was absolutely necessary if any molecules were to form spontaneously. The data suggests that a neutral atmosphere produced by volcanic gases was present in the early Earth. These gases form none of life’s building blocks in Miller’s apparatus. Certain artifacts suggest that oxygen was indeed present very early in the Earth’s formation, according to Dr. Jonathan Wells. The production of naturally occurring, pure, usable chemicals to build molecules would be impossible in the waters of the primitive earth, according to Dr. Cairns-Smith. 


Darwinists believe that it is possible for all life’s building blocks to form randomly under natural conditions when they spontaneously assemble themselves into a living cell. However, mathematicians and biochemists calculated the probability for life’s organization and they determined that there is only one chance in 1040,000 that a single cell organism could be assembled from organic molecules, according to Sir Fred Hoyle.  Probabilities that are greater than 1050 are simply impossible, according to many within the scientific community. The four billion years given by evolutionists for determination of life’s evolution is not enough time for life to arise out of a primordial soup, according to Dr. Francis Crick.

The neo-Darwinian shortcomings continue to manifest themselves. If it could be demonstrated scientifically that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then the evolution theory must collapse, according to Charles Darwin.


When we assess the evidence for neo-Darwinism, we discover two scientific research areas that provide evidence against evolutionary dogma. The first line of evidence against neo-Darwinism demonstrates that genetic mutations cannot build new genes, according to Dr. Georgia Purdom.   Mutations are only trivial changes resulting from the genetic alteration of genes already present, whereas genetic evolution requires the synthesis of new genes, according to Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse. Genetic studies provided evidence that mutations never take succeeding animal populations farther away from their beginning point, but rather the succeeding animal populations stay firmly fixed within their natural genetic boundaries. Bacteria, despite their innumerable mutations, have never transgressed the structural framework where they have always fluctuated, according to Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse and Dr. George Purdom.

A growing number of geneticists confirmed the findings against neo-Darwinism because the weight of scientific evidence demonstrates that many mutations primarily result in the loss of genetic information, which is precisely the opposite of many Darwinian predictions, according to Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. Lee Spetner.  The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for a theory. It is strong evidence against the evolution theory, according to Dr. Lee Spetner.


The next line of scientific evidence that discredits neo-Darwinism is irreducible complexity. Darwin’s simple-to-complex scheme has not stood up under scientific scrutiny. The famous Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe declared that irreducible complexity extends to the cell and to the other components that make up the living cell. This means that the cell could never have been built by simple step processes. Any functioning cell has to have all its complexity from the beginning. Anything less would have been non-functional, organic garbage. Behe’s famous mousetrap example illustrates the fallacy for why part of an eye is not much better than no eye at all because the part of an eye works no better than having only half the parts of a mousetrap. Irreducible complexity down to the smallest parts demands an omniscient Creator-Designer God who by His omniscience created an amazingly complex cell that demonstrates the Creator’s genius to humanity.

Dr. Behe’s reasoning explains why DNA, RNA, and proteins could never have evolved, according to any neo-Darwinian mechanism. When observing individual protein molecules, biochemists see great complexity and variety, with each individual molecule having a very specific function in life. Researchers ask the question: how do these molecules know their task? The answer to their question can be found in the molecules, known as DNA and RNA. These molecules transport the chemical instructions for creating and replicating life. DNA contains the actual blueprint or information for building all the components of a living cell, and RNA transports that information to other parts of the cell.

We should think of DNA as being similar to a compact disk complete with all the information and instructions for building a CD and a CD player. Without the RNA, the cells would have no way of comprehending the information contained in the DNA, which is information that will instruct the protein molecules to form or repair living cells. Because the instructions for building the RNA are contained within the DNA, it is similar to having a CD that contained all of the instructions detailing how to build a CD and a  CD player. However, with no CD player to play the CD on, how could we access the information? This means that neither RNA nor DNA could have evolved independently. Neo-Darwinists refuse to argue for the simultaneous evolution of DNA and RNA because they realize that it supports Dr. Behe’s irreducible complexity argument.


Modern Darwinism is collapsing before our eyes. In the near future, science will still call this evolution, but it will not reflect any of the religious dogmas of Darwinism. While evolution’s mainstay collapses gradually, the intelligent design (ID) scientific theory remains the only realistic explanation for life’s origin, history, and destiny. The ID science theory best explains the objective evidences seen today, such as the absence of transitional forms of life observed within the fossil record. The absence of transitional forms between fishes and amphibians, among amphibians and reptiles, and amid reptiles and mammals and birds demonstrates the major gaps found throughout the geological record. These missing links remain missing because they never existed during the primeval past.

The history of life reveals that the more biological organism’s change the more they remain the same. Genetic mutations and natural selection within plant and animal populations facilitates variation only, but never the creation of new genes which are necessary for the evolution of new species. Life’s history shows extinction decorating the fossil record, but never the formation of new plant and animals life forms.  The Creator created the kinds to bring forth after their own kind. The Creator designed genetic diversity within the cell which allows for the variation observed within the kinds.

Evolution is a religious philosophy applied to science and many people believe this 21st century creation myth because they love religion more than factual hard scientific truth. Atheism, deism, and scientism are faith based belief systems with some similarities to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  Therefore, the argument here is not just between the ID theory and evolution theory. The argument is on a religious and philosophical level. Evolutionary thinking rules out any supernatural and looks for other explanations within the naturalistic perspective, while the ID paradigm searches for both natural and supernatural explanations for the subject of origins. The scientific ID theory will  eventually replace neo-Darwinian dogma because it seeks answers from both a naturalistic and supernatural perspective.


    • Christian Apologetics; Doug Powell; 2006.
    • Charles Darwin; Michael Ruse; 2008.
    • Decoding Your Genes; Dr. Mark V. Bloom; 1999.
    • Evolution; Leslie Alan Horvitz; 2002.
    • Evolution; Dr. Greg Krukonis;2008.
    • Genetics, Evolution, and Creation; Dr. Georgia Purdom; 2009.
    • Collapse of Evolution: Harun Yaha; 2005.
    • Life Science; Lesley A. Du Temple; 2000.
    • Journey Toward Creation; Dr. Hugh Ross; 2000.
    • The Case For A Creator; Lee Strobel;2005.
    • Three Views on Creation and Evolution; J.P. Moreland; 1999.
    • Understanding Creation; Mark Whorton and Hill Roberts; 2004.



The intelligent design scientific theory has been slowly replacing Darwinism’s religious philosophy because of the increasing scientific evidence showing creation and design in the universe.

The intelligent design theory demonstrates the scientific impossibility of an evolutionary process by showing the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting an intelligent origin and design for the physical universe and natural life. When defending the scientific theory of intelligent design against the religious philosophy of evolution, we must understand that science was never invented to address issues of religious faith because science is a tool designed to unlock the mysteries of the universe by the power of the scientific method. Although this theory has powerful theistic implications, it is not biblical creationism which is based upon the revealed truth of the Holy Scriptures that transcends the limitations of human reason. The theory of intelligent design does not seek to prove God’s existence or the truth in the Holy Scriptures because this scientific theory is based purely on the weight of scientific evidence. Thus, the intelligent design theory demonstrates the scientific impossibility of an evolutionary process by showing the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting an intelligent origin and design for the physical universe and natural life.


The rational arguments defending the intelligent design theory are derived from the scientific method. The theory of intelligent design argues how intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich arrangements that biologists observed in biochemical information systems, which indicates why these observations make evident empirically detectable causes. Many biological features defy the standard Darwinian evolutionary random-chance explanation due to scientific discoveries in biology demonstrating specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and genetic predictability, which all appears to have been designed by intelligence. Therefore, since design logically necessitates an intelligent designer, science researchers cite the appearance of design as scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. Many intelligent design theorists employ several arguments in defending the scientific theory of intelligent design, which consist of irreducible complexity, specified complexity, biological entropy, thermodynamics, and the anthropic cosmological principle.


Irreducible complexity, a term made famous by Dr. Michael Behe, is a biochemical defense for an intelligent designer of a self replicating information system. Irreducible complexity has been defined as “a single system which is composed of many matching interdependent biological components that add to the organism’s essential operations, in which the elimination of any one of the components causes the biological system to completely cease functioning properly and sometimes completely.” In other words, all life shows evidence of comprising necessary interdependent parts in order to be functional. Random mutation cannot account for the development of a new part because mutations do not create new genetic information. All mutations cause the loss of genetic information or the duplication of the same kind of genetic information, but never the creation of new genetic information; therefore, random mutations cannot account for the concurrent development of multiple parts necessary for a functioning biological system. For example, mutations can produce cave fishes that have lost the ability to see or birds that cannot fly, but random mutations cannot cause land animals to become whales or apes to become humans because that would require a plethora of newly generated genetic information in the DNA and RNA of many biological systems, which has never been observed in scientific history.


The human eye is an excellent example of irreducible complexity. Evolutionary biologists argue that they have observed genetic mistakes in the human eye, but these observations reflect a history of biological entropy, which contradicts evolutionary history and supports a history for an original perfect design. In addition to this biological history, without the eyeball, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex, any randomly mutated incomplete primate eye would be counter-productive to the survival of any fit primate trying to evolve into a human being because the animal would be eliminated through the process of natural selection. Negative genetic mutations are usually eliminated through a process of natural selection. Natural selection involves the selection of genetic data from pre-existing genetic information in the animal population. Thus, the imaginary evolutionary history of the primates and the human eyes indicates that it is not a very useful biological system unless all of its parts are present and functioning properly at the same time.


Specified complexity is another excellent defense for an intelligent designer of living systems. Specified complexity is the theory arguing for the particular intricacies observed in living organisms. For example, since specified complex patterns have been observed in the cellular structure of many organisms, some form of guidance must have accounted for their origin. The specified complexity argument states that it is impossible for complex patterns to be developed through random naturalistic processes of either natural selection or genetic mutations. In other words, a large room filled with many chimpanzees typing away on many computers may eventually produce a few words, or maybe a single sentence on a single computer screen, but the primates will never be able produce the plays of William Shakespeare, the dialogues of Plato, the spirituality in the Holy Scriptures, or the blueprints for building a house. Since biological life forms are more complex than any dramatic Shakespearean play, then only a super intelligent designer could rationally be the cause of biological life, according Dr Stephen Meyer.


The science of biological entropy is an effective argument supporting the intelligence design theory because the history of biological entropy refutes macro-evolutionary biology. Darwin’s theory of evolution argues that some simple life forms become more complex overtime since the origination of the first cell about 3.75 billion years ago. However, careful scientific investigation of this faith based religious dogma demonstrates no such history because all biological systems are becoming less complex through a process of natural selection and genetic mutations. The weight of scientific evidence indicates that most mutations cause the loss of genetic information, which means all life is moving from complexity to simplicity. Thus, the growth and development of an embryo into an adult or a seed developing into a plant is only a continuation of preexisting genetic information derived from the genes in the animal’s embryo or the genetic data in the seed of a plant, but it is never a genetic increase in information, according to Dr. Jonathan Wells.


Nature’s thermodynamic laws demonstrate why the intelligent design theory is the best scientific explanation for the subject of origins. The thermodynamic laws of nature indicate that the universe could never have created itself before it came into existence and it could never have evolved itself following its creation. The first law of thermodynamics indicates that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed in nature because it only changes from one form into another form; therefore, the universe had to have been caused into existence by an unknown super-force. The second law of thermodynamics demonstrates that when changes do occur in the universe, the energy and matter only goes from a usable state to a non-usable state and the second law also demonstrates that entropy, which is a measurement of the disorder of the matter and energy in the universe, only increases when we move forward in time and always decreases when we move backward in time. Therefore, these scientific data demonstrates clearly that the universe and its laws of nature could never have evolved into existence through random naturalistic processes because the weight of scientific evidence indicates that the observable universe is in a state of conservation and deterioration.


The anthropic cosmological principle is another scientific defense of the intelligent design theory because it sketches the many precise scientific factors required to sustain the universe while revealing how the universe is “fine-tuned” for existence of life on the planet Earth. For example, if any of the four fundamental forces of nature, such as the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear forces, were altered by less than three percent, then the universe would be radically different and life could not exist on planet Earth. If the ratio of matter and anti-matter in universe were altered slightly, no galaxies or planets could exist because the matter and anti-matter would annihilate most of the cosmos. If the ratio of elements in the Earth’s air were altered a little, many plants and animals would quickly cease to exist. If the Earth were a few miles further away or closer to the sun, many plants and animals would cease to exist. If the Earth were located in a different part of the Milky Way Galaxy, life could never survive on the planet and we would not understand or appreciate the observable universe. Thus, the existence and continuation of life on Earth requires so many precise measurements to be fine tuned because it would be impossible for all the variables to come into being through a random and unguided history of natural events.


The theory of intelligent design does not attempt to identify the intelligence designer because the designer could be the God of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, an alien extraterrestrial intelligence from a UFO who seeks to seed dead planets with living systems, or a super-force beyond space and time that only behaves like intelligence. Intelligent design theorists only observe what appears to be design in the biological world as evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer. However, biblical creationism and Darwinian evolution are religious philosophies that have been applied to science. Biblical creationists seek to defend the doctrine of creation as revealed in Genesis chapters one and two and elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures, while Darwinian evolutionists seek to defend the religious philosophies of atheism, agnosticism, secularism, and materialism, which were derived from the celebrated Greek philosophers of Athens and the Indian mystics of antiquity. Therefore, the theory of intelligent design is more consistent with the requirements of the scientific method.


The theory of intelligent design is simply not biblical creationism because biblical creationists begin with the conclusion that the biblical account of creation is factual history demonstrating how the universe, the Earth, and life were designed by the Creator Designer God of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Bible believing creation scientists search for scientific evidence from the natural world to defend the Genesis account of creation. However, intelligent design theorists begin with their scientific investigation of the natural universe before reaching conclusions derived from the scientific method. Sometimes their scientific conclusions confirm micro-evolutionary concepts, such as plant and animal variation through a process of natural selection and genetic mutation, but many times their conclusions identify evidence for the intelligent design of the universe, the planet Earth, and life.


The scientific method supports the intelligent design theory more than the Darwinian macro-evolution theory. A proper understanding of the scientific method is necessary to determine whether an idea is scientific or religious. The scientific method has several steps. First, a scientist makes an observation. Second, a scientist formulates a hypothesis. Third, the scientist conducts experiments before making his or her analysis and assessment of the results of the experiment. Fourth, the scientific community repeats the same experiment. And fifth, if the results of the experiment are similar elsewhere to the original experiment, a new scientific theory is established throughout the scientific community. Therefore, Darwinian evolutionary dogma is non-scientific because it cannot be observed and it is based on the philosophical presuppositions of atheism and materialism, but not the scientific method. Although acts of creation are observed everyday, biblical creationism is less scientific because it is based upon faith in the Genesis account of creation more than evidence in the scientific method. Only the theory of intelligent design is purely scientific because it takes researchers to places where the evidence leads even when it is uncomfortable for an atheist who hates God and for a believer who loves God. Bear in mind, the scientific method includes 1) observation, 2) Hypothesis, 3) experimentation, and 4) theory.


We should never assume that people who believe in the theory of intelligent design are Bible believing Christians because philosopher and mathematician, Dr. David Berlinski (agnostic) and biochemists Dr. Michael Denton (atheist), author of “Evolution a Theory in Crisis” are non-believers who developed the intellectual courage to challenge Darwinian evolution. Understand that Christians like Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project and Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, author of “Finding Darwin’s God,” are scientists that believe in Darwinian macro-evolution. Bear in mind, a spiritual relationship with the Intelligent Designer of the universe is infinitely more important to truth seekers and knowledge lovers than any man or woman having a perfect scientific understanding of the subject of origins.


A scientific defense of the intelligent design theory is a rational and logical approach to understanding the subject of origins because intelligent design is both a fact and a theory. Intelligent design is a fact because it is supported by the weight of scientific evidence and it can be demonstrated clearly through the scientific method. The weight of scientific evidence clearly indicates that complex specified information systems originate from pre-existing information systems, which were first derived from an uncaused mind or intelligence force. Intelligent design is a theory because no scientists can determine with absolute certainty who or what the intelligent designer is. Therefore, intelligence design is not a hypothesis because it is both a fact and a theory based purely upon the weight of scientific evidence. This has always been the scientific theory embraced by Johannes Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein. Intelligent design is destined to gradually replace Darwinian macro-evolutionary religious philosophy within the scientific community during the 21st century because of the increasing scientific data supporting the rational concept for an intelligent Creator and Designer of the physical universe.


A Brief History of Time; Stephen Hawking; 1996. Darwin’s Black Box; Michael Behe; 1996; Evolution: A Theory in Crisis; Michael Denton; 1985. The Grand Design; Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow; 2010. Theories of the Universe; Gary F. Moring, M.A.; 2002. The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Charles Thaxton in 1984. A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton in 1986. Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson in 1991. Creation Hypothesis, Dean Kenyon in 1994. Reason in the Balance, Phillip Johnson in 1995. Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe in 1996. The Design Inference, William Dembski in 1999. Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells in 2000. The Design Revolution, William Dembski in 2004.




Today, the science of archaeology has shown that nothing has been found to disprove the historical accuracy of the Holy Bible when it describes events, places, and people.

Biblical archeologyinvolve studies in human cultures through the recovery, documentation, and analysis of material remains and environmental data decorating the Middle East and elsewhere. It explains the origins and evolution of biblical civilizations and cultures for societies of the past throughout the biblical world. Researchers have discovered ancient stone, tablets, and manuscripts confirming the Biblical text because their systematic study of the biblical past through its physical remains began seriously in the early 1800’s. For many years skeptics have worked very hard striving to discover mistake within God’s Holy Scriptures. However, their relentless efforts have only managed to build stronger proof with more convincing evidence demonstrating the exact opposite of their agenda. Today archaeology and history show that the Bible is completely accurate and factual in many details. Reliable evidence for Biblical accuracy comes from archaeology and secular history where modern science researchers have uncovered solid evidence for the people, places, and events mentioned in the God’s Holy Bible.

Many people and places mentioned in God’s Holy Scriptures are known to have existed through evidence provided by archaeological science. Archaeologists have found King Solomon’s palace remains with its stables at Megiddo. The Biblical description for the Bethesda pool in Jerusalem has been found. The Holy Land contains historical treasures in abundance that supports the Biblical historical accounts. Today, no archaeological dig has ever contradicted any major biblical accounts describe in the Holy Bible, according to biblical scholar Dr. Lawrence Schiffman.


The Holy Bible mentions a King named Herod. Recent archaeological excavations have proven that such a king did exist. He lived right where and when the Bible says. For years historical scholars questioned King Herod’s existence before coins bearing Herod’s name were discovered verifying the Holy Scriptures. Archaeological excavations at Samaria, Caesarea, Jerusalem, Jericho and Masada all have found items confirming the existence of this king. Herod’s palace at Caesarea where Paul was kept under guard has also been discovered by archeologists, according to Dr. Grant Jeffrey.


A major historical figure whose very existence was questioned was the charismatic Biblical King David. For years, there appeared to be no real physical evidence for King David’s historic existence. However, at Tel Dan in Israel, a rock was discovered with the inscription “House of David” and “King of Israel” in 1993. This writing, dated to the 9th century BC, only a century following David’s reign, described a victory by a neighboring King over the Israelites, according to Dr. Randall Price. A few skeptics argued that the inscription might have been misread, but many archaeological experts believe Dr. Avraham Biran and Dr. Nivah (the archaeologists who discovered the basalt chunk at Tel Dan) found evidence for King David’s existence. The false arguments made by critics about King David non-existences in history can no longer be defended rationally. The evidence for David’s existence is significant to believers because Messiah Yeshua (Christ Jesus) was prophetically required to be King David’s descendant through the bloodlines leading up to Mary who birth Yeshua.


Today, a few skeptics question Messiah Yeshua’s historic existence because they are ignorant about the historic evidence showing that Messiah did live in real time and real space around 2000 years ago. Archaeologists have discovered 1st century artifacts which bear His name (YESHUA, YASHUA, or YESHU), confirming that at least some person of that name existed and lived around the time the Holy Bible says that Messiah lived. Furthermore, because modern time has been recorded with reference to BC and AD, it seems rational to conclude that a prominent personality by this name existed.

The famous Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who was not a believer in Messiah Yeshua’s divinity, mentions Yeshua and His brother James. Flavius Josephus wrote about Yeshua’s death, burial, and resurrection. Josephus described Yeshua as miracle worker and healer of the sick, according to his work on Jewish Antiquites book 18. Skeptics make the false charge that this was a forgery inserted into Josephus writings without providing any evidence to support their bogus claims.

Furthermore, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman Army in 70 AD, the supreme Sanhedrin court collapsed along with it. A Pharisaical group compiled a religious code known as the Mishnah to sustain Jewish spirituality. Over the years several commentaries, the Gemaras, were developed around the Mishnah. Together they are known as the Talmud. While there is little reference to Christianity in the Talmud, it say there did exist Yeshu of Nazareth (Jesus of Nazareth) who was described as a transgressor in Israel because, among other things, he practiced magic. For his transgressions he was executed on Passover Eve, according to early Talmudic commentaries, according to Dr. Grant Jeffrey. Therefore, there are non-Christian historical sources verifying that Yeshua did perform miracles, although these sources describe them to sorcery.

For many Christians, the greatest miracle mentioned in the Holy Bible is Messiah Yeshua’s resurrection from physical death. This miraculous historical event forms, builds, and shapes Christian foundation. Skeptics have tried to explain away the resurrection. A theory employed to explain away the empty tomb following Yeshua’s resurrection is the possibility that either religious or secular authorities secretly removed the body themselves. This dubious argument means that the Roman authorities made an agreement with Yeshua’s followers to promote their new religion, which was based upon his resurrection. Bear in mind, it was Yeshua’s resurrection that was the foundation for this new religious sect’s formation and Rome’s religious and secular authorities would have preferred to destroy this new faith immediately. If the Roman government and religious leaders had evidence that the resurrection was a deception, the leadership would have come forward with Yeshua’s dead body. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, according to Sir Isaac Newton. This means that Christianity would never have begun with the Yeshua’s resurrection.


Pontius Pilate was another prominent Biblical figure whose existence was question by many historians before archaeological evidence verified his existence in history. The famous roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, mentions Pilate in his writings when he wrote accounts of Christian persecution by the Roman Emperors, according to his Annals of history. Additionally, archaeological digs at a Roman theater in Caesarea, Israel, found a stone used for theater seats. The inscription on the stone reveals Pontius Pilate’s name.


The Holy Bible says in Josh. 6:20 that “So the people shouted when the priests blew the trumpets. And it happened when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat. Then the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.”

Dr. John Garstang excavated Jericho in the 1930’s. He found the walls of Jericho as they had fallen in Joshua’s time. However, British archaeologist Dr. Kathleen Kenyon conclude that Jericho could not have existed after 1550 BC, clearly contradicting the work of Dr. John Garstang and the Biblical chronology of its destruction by Joshua and the Israelites. Nevertheless, years later other archaeologists found evidence that showed Dr. Kenyon’s date was incorrect and that Jericho’s existence did fit with the Bible’s chronology, which confirmed Dr. Garstang’s earlier work on Jericho, according to Dr. Bryant Wood.

The city of Jericho’s remains reveal that its demise appeared to line up with the Biblical account, which says the walls of Jericho fell suddenly. The evidence indicates that the city was strongly fortified and it was attacked following the spring harvest and there was not enough time for Jericho’s inhabitants to flee from the city with their food and supplies. The siege of Jericho did not take long because the city’s walls were leveled in a manner that provided easy access for the siege to take place. The invaders did not loot the city. The city was burned following the collapse of its walls. These findings line up perfectly with the account given in Joshua chapters two and six, according to Dr. Bryant Wood.

During excavations in the early 1930s, it was determined from the walls of Jericho remains that they were not pushed inward by an attacking army with battering rams. Rather, the walls seem to have fallen straight down, as if the Earth had disappeared beneath them. The Biblical account tells readers that they were knocked down supernaturally. When the walls of Jericho collapsed, they fell straight down because God caused an earthquake to occur in that region, according to Dr. Amos Nur and Dr. Bryant Wood.


The Bible says in Daniel 5:1, 30 that “Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his lords…that very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was slain.” Belshazzar was mentioned as a ruler in Dan. 5:1-30. Many historians scoffed at the Bible for listing Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon. Many scholars believe that Nabonidus was the last king. In the mid 1800’s archaeologists unearthed tablets in Babylon ruins that listed Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, as co-ruler in Babylon, during the mid-1800s. Nabonidus, who ruled the empire of Babylon from 555-538 BC, mentions his firstborn son Belshazzar on an inscription found in the city of Ur in 1853. The inscription reads: “May it be that I, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, never fail you. And may my firstborn, Belshazzar, worship you with all his heart,” according to Dr. Grant Jeffrey.

Additional piece of evidence for Belshazzar’s reign in the city of Babylon comes from an inscription where he is referred to as the son of Nabonidus and is given authority to rule. The inscription reads: “Putting the camp under the rule of his oldest son . . . His hands were now free; He entrusted the authority of the royal throne to him.” Belshazzer was the second-in-command at the time of Nabonidus. This is why Daniel was promised a position as the third highest ruler, not the second highest ruler. This archaeological fact again confirms the Biblical record, according to Dr. Randall Price.


Skeptics argue that the Old Testament Hebrew prophetic books, were first written following the events the prophets prophesied by an unknown scribe. In Isaiah 44:28, the prophet predicted in 700 BC that Cyrus would declare that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt and the foundation of the temple was to be laid. When Isaiah wrote this prophecy, Solomon’s temple was standing and Jerusalem was a bustling city. How then could Isaiah have known that the Babylonians would destroy Jerusalem, devastate the temple, and that a military commander named Cyrus would give the order that their temple and Jerusalem should be rebuilt? Eschatologists believe that Isaiah and many other prophets were shown the future by God, while skeptics argue that that the Book of Isaiah along with other prophetic books were altered later to fit the events that took place in the future.

This argument by skeptics collapsed like a house of cards when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the caves at Qumran in 1947. Analysis of the scrolls confirmed conclusively that Isaiah and other books of the prophets were not significantly altered at later dates to fit the future events prophesied. Approximately 40,000 scroll fragments were found in jars in different caves. Roughly 35,000 scroll fragments from 400 manuscripts were found in cave number four. Many scrolls were produced prior to 70 AD. The scrolls represent the literary remains of a community that lived at Qumran from roughly 170 BC to 70 AD. The scrolls contain writing samples from all Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures except for the Book of Esther, according to Dr. Craig Evans.

The scrolls significantly increased many Biblical scholars knowledge about the Hebrew Scriptures from 1000 to 800 BC, from which time Biblical Scholars trace the present Hebrew Bible. The scrolls show the Hebrew text has undergone much less change than previously thought. The scrolls have caused the Hebrew Biblical text to be treated with greater respect by scholars today than it has been for some time. The scrolls brought to light much knowledge about the Jewish Essene community, according to Dr. Randall Price.


Skeptics argue that Moses could not have written the first five books in the Holy Scriptures (the Pentateuch) because writing simply did not exist during Moses’ time. However, when the Ebla tablets were found at the site of Tell Mardikh in modern Syria in 1964, this discovery destroyed many arguments by critics. These tablets contain writings on law codes, judicial procedures, and case law. Because the Ebla tablets are about 1000 years older than the Mosaic Law, we know that the written language already been developed before Moses’ time; therefore, he could have written the Pentateuch.

The Ebla tablets revealed the names of over 5000 cities. The tablets include names of many Biblical cities such as Salem, Gaza, Lachish, Ashdod, and others. Archaeological excavations found many thousands of tablets from the Ebla Kingdom era. The digs in northern Syria have verified that people had writing skills since ancient times, even during the time of the patriarchs around 2000 BC.

The Ebla discovery shows evidence for writing 1000 years before the time of Moses. Many customs and events were recorded in writing in the same area of the world where Moses and the patriarchs lived. Genesis chapter 14 refers to the five cities of the Plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, Zoar), which have been confirmed by Ebla archives. The area flourished before the catastrophe recorded in Genesis chapter 14. We now know about early writing systems such as Egyptian hieroglyphics, Ugartic cunieform script, proto-Siniatic hieroglyphic script, and Hittite hieroglyphic system.


Today, nothing has been found to disprove the historical accuracy of the Holy Bible when it describes events, places, and people. Many archaeology experts believe categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever invalidated a biblical reference, according to Dr. Nelson Glueck. Discoveries have established the accuracy of innumerable details of the Bible, according Dr. William F Albright. Many archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline and exact detail historical statements in the Holy Bible, according to Dr. Nelson Glueck.

The Holy Bible offers special revelation. The Holy Scriptures contain natural and supernatural revelations. This masterpiece of Hebrew literature was written by 40 different authors, while its primary author is God the Holy Spirit. The Bible was first written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, it has 39 books in the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures and it has 27 books making up the New Testament Scriptures. This inspirational work was written over roughly 1600 years. The Bible has been unchanged for 2000 years and it has remained accurate in all of its historic, geographic, and scientific details, according to Dr. Grant Jeffrey.


  • Biblical Mysteries; Dr. Donald Ryan;2000.
  • Halley’s Bible Handbook; Henry Halley; 1965.
  • In Search of Temple Treasures; Dr. Randall Price; 1995.
  • The Life of Christ; Pastor William R. Grimbol; 2001.
  • The Signature of God; Dr. Grant Jeffrey; 2010.
  • The Dead Sea Scrolls; Dr. Craig Evans;2005.
  • The Bible; Dr. Jeffrey Geoghegan; 2003.
  • Unveiling Mysteries of the Bible; Dr. Grant Jeffrey; 2000.



Modern atheists employ dubious arguments when defending their system of belief because they are unaware of the false assumptions decorating their rhetoric, science, and philosophical perspectives.  They critique and deny the metaphysical beliefs in God or any supernatural being like atheists before them, while offering no original argument for God’s non-existence. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves the supernatural door open to the possibility of God’s existence, atheism closes that door completely by making a clear rejection of any supernatural existence. This belief is rooted in an array of Western philosophical traditions. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for atheism within the materialism arena.

Although they were not fully committed atheists, David Hume and Immanuel Kant argued against traditional evidences for God’s existence, making personal belief a faith matter alone. Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a human ideal projection and that recognizing this human invention made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Friedrich Nietzsche’s atheistic existentialism proclaimed God’s death and humanity’s intellectual liberty from the chains and shackles of religious dogma.


The modern rhetorical argument was designed to help atheists justify their not developing an argument for God’s non-existence. The rhetorical argument teaches that atheism is not a belief system because it is simply the lack of a belief in any God, according to

Atheist George H. Smith. An atheist has nothing to prove concerning this subject and the theist bears all the burden of evidence in any debate. In other words, we are all atheists about many gods. Atheists simply reject the belief in any God. When theists understand why atheists disbelieve in the existence of any God, then they will realize why atheists disbelieve in their God, according to atheist B.C. Johnson. Finally, extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence, according Dr. Carl Sagan.

This rhetorical atheistic argument reveals why many people will continue rejecting atheism because it is the rhetoric of an intellectual coward who has been hiding in the tall grass for cover as he or she throws darts at classical theistic arguments. If atheists had any real argument, they would liberate the theistic world from the corruptions of theism by enlightening the leaders of philosophical theism with a rational atheistic argument.

When atheists try to redefine atheism as merely a lack of belief in theism rather than as the denial of God’s supernatural existence, atheists are seeking to shift the burden of evidence in this discussion entirely to theists because they know that they have no real argument. This gives an atheist an unfair and spineless strategic advantage over the theist because the atheist who uses this argument is only trying to win a debate by any means necessary, but he or she is not attempting ascertain any metaphysical truth. During a formal debate the yes bears the entire burden of evidence, but in debating a question the burden of evidence should be equally shared by all participants.

The redefining of atheism reveals a logical contradiction. If atheism means ‘the lack of a belief in God’ then is the existence of God logically compatible with the lack of a belief in God? In other words, is it possible for God to exist and there still be a lack of belief in God? The answer obviously is YES. Therefore, atheism requires an argument for God’s non-existence, which is exactly what many atheists are afraid to do.

“An ‘atheist’ is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence ‘God exists’ expresses a false proposition. On our definition, an ‘atheist’ is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that “God exists” expresses a false proposition,” according to philosopher Dr. Paul Edwards.

“I shall understand by ‘atheism’ a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism. Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief, or with disbelief in some particular creed of a religious group. Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist for he is not denying any theistic claims,” according to atheist philosopher Dr. Ernest Nagel.

Furthermore, atheism is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence because many people throughout world history, from King Solomon to Sir Isaac Newton, have all affirmed God’s existence; therefore, it appears that the persons denying God’s existence are the people making the extraordinary claim.


The scientific argument has become the weakest defense for an atheistic world view because of the growing scientific data showing creation and design throughout the universe. Nevertheless, atheists argue that virtual particles prove that is it possible for something to come into existence uncaused from nothing, therefore the universe could have originated into existence uncaused from nothing, according to atheist and philosopher Dr. Daniel Dennett. Atheists believe that religion has always stood against scientific advancement. They argue that religion has reacted against science because science has displaced humankind from the center of the universe. Atheists are convinced that as the maker of the biological complexity on Earth, the Creator and Designer of living systems must be no less complex and therefore God would need a causal explanation, according to Dr. Richard Dawkins. Finally, atheists believe that because many scientists are atheists, then any belief in God is based upon ignorance and not science.

Skeptics often deny the premise that everything must have a cause because quantum physics teaches the scientific community that not everything that happens needs to have a cause, according to atheist philosopher Dr. Daniel Dennett. In other words, Dr. Dennett claims that physicists have observed that certain particles arise out of a quantum vacuum and thus come out of nothing without any known causation.

However, other physicists argue that this is not exactly what is going on with virtual particles. They are not true counter-examples to the law of causality. The modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum, which is nothing. The quantum vacuum states are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima. The quantum mechanical vacuum is not truly ‘nothing’; rather, the vacuum state has a rich structure which resides in a previously existing substratum, according to physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler.

Atheists teach that Christianity and other religions have always stood against the advances of science. They use Galileo’s case as evidence for their anti-Christian propaganda. However, the medieval Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to astronomical research and study for over six centuries. The Churches commitment to science has been greater than many other religious or secular organizations during that time. The medieval period gave birth to the university which developed with the papacy support. By 1500 AD, many religious universities across Europe educated many students about the natural world, according to Dr. Michael H Shank.

By 1500 AD, more literate Europeans had had access to scientific materials than any of their predecessors in earlier Western cultures, thanks largely to the emergence of the medieval universities. “If the medieval church had intended to suppress the inquiry into nature, it must have been completely powerless, for it utterly failed to reach its goal.” according to Dr. Michael H. Shank.

Another theistic argument says any maker of the biological complexity observed on Earth must be no less complex and therefore would need a causal explanation. In other words, any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA and protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself. However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable,” according to famous atheist and biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins.

The reasoning behind Dawkins’ argument is based on materialistic assumptions. While the God that created life on planet Earth is a complex and omniscient Supreme Being, there is no logical reason to think that all minds which are capable of creating complex objects and processes must in themselves be complex because human beings create and design computers that can do advance mathematical calculations superior to their own math abilities. Further, this assumption is based on a commitment to Darwinism. However, an increasing number of scientists are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian Theory should be encouraged, according to a list of scientists who signed a scientific dissent form from Darwinism.

For some skeptics, because many scientists are atheists, then any belief in God is not very scientific. However, just a few centuries ago, many scientists believed in the existence of God, especially Sir Isaac Newton. Does that mean that God existed back then because that was the majority opinion that scientists believed? Who knows what “many scientists” will believe in the next 50 years. Further, if it is true that many scientists are atheists, this says more about their philosophical influences on their religious and philosophical deliberations than the potency of their science.


Atheists have never made an effective argument against the theistic cosmological argument partly because many of them do not completely understand this powerful argument for causation. Atheists often argue that if everything needs a cause, then God needs a cause. Who made God? Who designed the designer? While Christian apologists have repeatedly answered this question, atheists still continue making the same mistake when they attack this argument.

“St. Thomas Aquinas argued that everything needs a cause to account for its existence. Aquinas believed that if we regress backwards in time through an unbroken chain of causation, then we would eventually arrive at the cause of the universe itself. Aquinas argued that this ‘First Cause’ could be nothing other than God Himself,” according to atheist David Mills. “Everything had a cause, and every cause is the effect of a previous cause. Something must have started it all. God is the eternal first cause and the Creator and sustainer of the universe. The major premise of this argument ‘everything had a cause,’ is contradicted by the conclusion that ‘God did not have a cause.’ You can’t have it both ways. If everything had to have a cause, then there could not be a first cause,” according to atheist Dan Barker.

“Everything that exists has a cause; space and time exist; space and time must, therefore, have been caused by something that stands outside of space and time, and the only thing that transcends space and time, and yet retains the power to create, is God,” according to atheist Sam Harris. “The cosmological argument, which in its simplest form states that since everything must have a cause the universe must have a cause, namely God doesn’t stay simple for long,” according to atheist philosopher Dan Dennett.

When analyzing the comments from all the above atheists, it is very clear that they do not understand the cosmological argument because there is no version of the cosmological argument for the existence of God that says that “EVERYTHING” must have causation. The Kalam cosmological argument teaches that everything that BEGINS to exist requires a cause for its existence, according to Christian philosopher and apologist Dr. William Lane Craig. Another version says that only CONTINGENT beings need a cause, according to famous theologian St. Thomas Aquinas.

Many atheists fail to understand the cosmological argument because they are taking their signals from the famous atheist British philosopher Bertrand Russell. He argued that “perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God. That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think; the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.” Therefore, Russell and many atheists do not correctly understand the cosmological argument because they believe it teaches that EVERYTHING has causality.

Another argument that atheist often make is who made God? According to atheist David Mills, “this so-called ‘First Cause’ argument, however, is a textbook illustration of ad hoc reasoning. For if ‘everything needs a cause to account for its existence,’ then we are forced to address the question of who or what created God?” According to atheist Dan Baker, “the mind of the designer would be at least as complex and orderly as the nature it created and would be subject to the same question: ‘Who made god?’ According to Sam Harris, “if God created the universe, what created God? To say that God, by definition, is uncreated simply begs the question.”

According to physicists Dr. Stephen Hawking and Dr. Leonard Mlodinow, why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why this particular set of laws and not some other?’ Some would claim the answer to these questions is that there is a God who chose to create the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God?” According to atheist and biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins, “to explain the origin of the DNA protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.”

However, their arguments fail to recognize that God never began to exists because God is the uncaused first cause who is the Creator and Designer of the physical universe; therefore, their questions are really based upon illogical assumptions because it assumes there was an infinite series of creator gods. This question only leads to another question: who created the being that created God? If there was an infinite series of causations and recreations, we would never get to the present moment to ask questions about origins, according to Dr. William Lane Craig.

If we falsely assume that reality is an infinite row of dominos, then domino A would never get to domino B because all the dominos would go back to infinite; therefore, we would never get to the present moment. Hence, there has to be an uncaused first cause because we are here in the present moment discussing this issue, according to Dr. William Lane Craig.

Finally, since the universe has a beginning, the universe requires a cause. The universe requires a cause because the weight of scientific evidence demonstrates that it had a beginning. Einstein’s general relativity theory and Edwin Hubble’s observations along with Lord Kelvin’s explanation of the thermodynamic laws of nature demonstrates that the universe had a finite beginning. Since time came into existence when the universe was created, then whatever or whoever created the universe would had to have been eternal, according to Dr. Hugh Ross.


    • Atheist Universe; David Mills; 2006.
    • Atheism: The Case Against God; George H. Smith; 1989.
    • Breaking the Spell; Dr. Daniel C. Dennett; 2006.
    • Christian Apologetics; Doug Powell; 2006.
    • Godless; Dan Barker; 2008.
    • Letter to a Christian Nation; Sam Harris; 2008.
    • Myth 2: That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the Growth of Science;Dr. Michael H. Shank; 2009.
    • Philosophical Concepts of Atheism in Critiques of God; Dr. Peter A. Angeles; 1997.
    • Summa Theologica; Saint Thomas Aquinas; 13th century AD.
    • The Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Dr. Paul Edwards (editor); 1967.
    •  The Atheist Debater’s Handbook; B.C. Johnson; 1983.
    • The Anthropic Cosmological Principle; John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler; 1986.
    • The Creator and the Cosmos; Dr. Hugh Ross; 1995.
    •  The Blind Watchmaker; Dr. Richard Dawkins; 1987.
    • The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Dr. William Lane Craig; 1995.
    •  The God Delusion; Dr. Richard Dawkins; 2006.
    • What is Atheism? A Short Introduction; Douglas E. Krueger; 1998.
    • Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects; Bertrand Russell; 2000.



The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are two scientific explanations confirming the origin and destiny of the universe and life from an intelligent Creator and Designer.

The weight of scientific evidence shows that cosmic and biological macro-evolutionary theory is a complete violation of nature’s thermodynamic laws because the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics confirms that the physical universe and life had an origin and they could never have evolved under purely natural conditions. Thermodynamics describes heat, work, temperature, and energy relationships. Thermodynamics predicts all physical systems will reach their equilibrium, which can be described by specifying their properties, such as pressure, temperature, and chemical composition. When external constraints change, these properties generally change. The thermodynamic laws describe these changes and predict the system’s equilibrium condition. The first law indicates that whenever energy is converted from one form into another form, the total energy quantity remains the same. In other words, energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed. All energy and matter within the universe is being conserved and the total sum is constant, according to Dr. Isaac Asimov.

The second law indicates that, within any closed finite system, the system’s entropy does not decrease. In other words, energy and matter changes from a usable state into and non-usable state, but the total amount of energy and matter remains the same for doing work in an isolated system, according to Dr. Isaac Asimov. Every real process goes toward a greater probability condition. The probability function generally employed in thermodynamics is entropy. The smaller possible arrangement numbers, then the less the entropy. If there is only one place for each thing, then the entropy is zero. If the system is highly random, then the entropy is a large number. Therefore, orderliness is associated with low entropy and randomness with high entropy. Within the systems scientists ordinarily study, they observe that there are a large possible arrangement numbers therefore the entropy is a large number. The second law of thermodynamics declares that left to itself any isolated system will go toward greater entropy, which also means toward greater randomness and disorder, according to Dr. Harold F. Blum. Therefore, the physical universe functions on conservation and deterioration, according to Dr. Duane Gish and Dr. Henry Morris.


For many astrophysicists, the First Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates that the entire matter and energy quantity within the finite universe remains constant, while The Second Law of Thermodynamic shows that matter and energy within the universe always transform from usable state to a non-usable state, from complexity to simplicity, or from order to chaos. Therefore, the universe could never have created itself and it could never have existed eternally, or it would have run down an infinite time ago. Therefore, the physical universe, including its matter and energy, was created a finite time ago, according to the weight of scientific evidence.

The first law is the most fundamental generalization and observation about the universe that the scientific community has ever made, according to Dr. Isaac Asimov. “The First Law teaches that a natural process cannot bring into existence something from nothing. If the First Law is correct, which seems to be the case, and if the universe had a beginning, which seems to be scientifically accepted, then one conclusion is that something unnatural created the universe. The thought that the universe may have originated supernaturally is unsettling to many people. However, taken at face value, this conclusion is consistent with the total sum of evidence before us,” according to Dr. Robert Gange.

The “big-bang” theory describing the universe’s origination contradicts numerous physical evidences and it appears to be embraced by faith in a purely materialistic explanation for the universe’s origin. While scientific data show that the physical universe is expanding from a singularity point, it could never have originated from a chaotic and random explosion commonly referred to as the Big Bang because the Second Law of Thermodynamic predicts an increase in entropy, which is a measurement of disorder proliferating throughout the universe, as we move forward in time. Therefore, if we were to travel backward in time, we would observe a significant decrease in the entropy throughout the universe; thus, the universe could never have originated from a state of total entropy, which means no Big Bang ever happened in cosmic history. Actually, the Second Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates that there was a time in the universe’s history when everything was in perfect synchronization, which is scientific confirmation for special creation, according to Dr. Russell Humphreys.

This was the case with other Darwinian cosmological theories that have been discredited by the weight of scientific evidence, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory and the oscillating universe theory. The Second Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates that the universe had a finite beginning; therefore, the steady-state-theory and the oscillating universe theory are in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A definitive subject’s inconceivability should never be permitted to rule out any theory that explains the observational data’s relationship and its utilization for scientific predictions, according to Dr. Wernher von Braun.


Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record, and gaps appear systematically throughout the fossil record between various living species, according to Dr. Jonathan Wells. These facts demonstrate plant and animal creation, while showing that macro-evolution never happened, according to Dr. Michael Behe. As stated above, the Second Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates that things move from order to disorder unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism, whether a system is open or closed. Therefore, simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules could never have evolved through a naturalistic random mechanism into a living cell, according to Dr. Jonathan wells. Thus, the scientific data shows that Darwinism is in complete violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, according to Dr. Duane Gish.

Darwinists argue that evolution can occur with open systems. In other words, life on planet Earth is an open system therefore the evolutionary process sidesteps the Second Law’s demand for increasing disorder with time, according to Dr. Lewin Roger. However, entropy (a measurement of disorder) normally increases within any system open to an external energy influx. While the conditions for increasing complexity require an open system and available energy, these two conditions are met by other systems on planet Earth. Although they are necessary for an imaginary evolutionary process, they are insufficient conditions for life’s evolution because the mechanisms for storing and converting incoming energy require a conversion mechanism, such as photosynthesis in plant metabolism, in animal machinery, and in artificial constructions, according Dr. Duane Gish.

In other words, merely specifying any useful energy source does not offer a satisfactory explanation for how the ordering process occurs. To do that, we need to identify the exact mechanisms that will couple the available energy reservoir into biologically relevant processes. Therefore, energy alone is not sufficient to create complex ordered systems required for life. To build complex systems we must have mechanisms to capture raw energy, convert it into useful energy, and then be able to use the energy, according to Dr. Paul Davies.

Furthermore, this means that the growth and development of a plant seed into a tree or an embryo into an adult animal demonstrates a continuation of preexisting genetic information already written in the genetic code of the seed or embryo before physical maturation, but never an increase in genetic complexity or development of new Genes, according to Dr. Georgia Purdom.

Many laboratory experiments related to life’s origin theories have failed to remotely approached any life form synthesis from dead chemicals, and the highly limited outcomes have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and highly unlikely. These conditions’ high improbability and the relatively insignificant outcomes demonstrate conclusively that life could never emerge by any Darwinian naturalistic process. Finally, if elements within the scientific community successfully replicated the imaginary primeval conditions for life’s origin, this would only confirm that it takes intelligence to create life anyway because only the most intelligent and educated people among us could create or explain life’s origins scientifically.


The laws of nature are high level scientific achievements. Underneath nature’s laws are theories, hypotheses, and models. Many scientific observations in the universe are based upon the operations of these natural laws. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are two scientific explanations confirming the origin and destiny of the universe and life from an intelligent Creator and Designer. As stated above, the First Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates that there is no known physical and chemical process whereby matter and energy originates into existence from nothing.

Without empirical evidence, Darwinists are left with a gigantic gap in their materialistic religious belief system, which is their doctrine of matter originating from purely natural materialistic processes. This absurdity leads to the following logical deduction: The creation of the universe and life requires an intelligent Creator and Designer, which many intellectual honest observers believe was a supernatural God. However, while evolutionism requires many miracles, Darwinists reject any intelligent supernatural maker. Their reasoning leaves an enormous unexplained gap in the evolutionary model’s explanation for origins. Therefore, evolutionism contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics and Creation agrees with nature’s law.

Darwinism violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the Second Law shows that everything has been going through a process of degeneration from an original perfect creation. This means a decrease in complexity and an increase in simplicity or disorganization. However, the evolution model require that everything is becoming more organized and complex such as lifeless chemicals organizing into a living cell, a cell evolving into a multi-cell organism, fishes evolving into an amphibian, reptiles evolving into mammals and birds, and apelike primates becoming humans and all of this Darwinian history was completely independent of any Intelligent Designer Super-Force. Therefore, Darwinism clearly contradicts the Second law of Thermodynamics, while creation concurs with the Second Law.


  • Case For A Creator; Lee Strobel; 2004.
  • Christian Apologetics; Doug Powell; 2006.
  • Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics; Dr. Duane T. Gish; 1993.
  • Genetics, Evolution, and Creation; Dr. Georgia Purdom; 2009.
  • Icons of Evolution; Jonathan Wells; 2002.
  • Origins and Destiny; Dr. Robert Gange; 1986.
  • Perspectives in Evolution; Dr. Harold F. Blum; 1955.
  • Problems with Entropy in Biology, Dr. Charles smith; 1975.
  • The Case For the Existence of God; Dr. Bert Thomson; 2003.
  • The 5th Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life; Dr. Paul Davies; 1999.
  • The Heavens Declare; Dr. John Hartnett; 2008.
  • The Origin of the Universe; Dr. Harold Slucher; 1978.
  • The Young Sun; Dr. Jason Lisle and Others; 2009.



The science data demonstrates that life’s origination from purely naturalistic processes is simply impossible, but macro-evolutionists still have faith in naturalistic “miracles.” Abiogenesis (chemical evolution) is simply impossible under natural conditions.

The scientific evidence demonstrates clearly that macro-evolutionary theory has no scientific answer for any question about life’s origin and the scientific data have directed many science researchers to theories about a Creator and Designer God for explanations related to life’s beginning. Today, there is much misinformation and false answers being presented to the public by Darwinists within the scientific community to support macro-evolutionary dogma surrounding origin of life questions.

The macro-evolutionary model teaches that roughly 15 billion years ago the universe evolved from a “Big Bang” cosmic expansion, approximately 4.5 billion years ago the planet Earth evolved into existence, and roughly 3.5 billion years ago chemicals began forming in the “primordial soup” where the chemicals bonded together to form molecules and the molecules bonded together to form the first living cell.

On the other hand, the creation model teaches in Colossians 1:16 and elsewhere in God’s Holy Scriptures that God created everything both visible and invisible. This terminology describes the atoms, which are matter’s basic unity, the molecules and their specific atomic arrangements, the amino acids and their specific molecular arrangements, and proteins and their amino acids arrangements.

Macro-evolutionary doctrine teaches life’s spontaneous generation, which was proven false by biochemists Louis Pasteur. Today, spontaneous generation has been renamed chemical evolution by Darwinists. Therefore, all attempts to create life in a laboratory, the building blocks requirement for life, probability calculations for life’s origin, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and information science and biological complexity demonstrate that life cannot and did not originate from purely naturalistic processes.


Today, all attempts to create life in a laboratory have failed. The famous Stanley Miller experiment, conducted during the 1950s, was only successful in generating life’s building blocks (amino acids), but not real life, according to many biochemists. While Darwinists continue bragging about how the Miller experiment created the amino acids necessary for life and thus illustrating life’s possible origin, intelligent design theorists present three questions. First, how did Miller know what gases were in the early Earth’s atmosphere? Second, did Miller use intelligent design or random chance occurrences? And third, were all the amino acids Miller got the right kinds used in life?

Darwinists argue that the Earth’s primeval atmosphere must contain no oxygen for chemical evolution to occur. This claim by evolutionists has proliferated throughout the scientific community for many years. However, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim of no oxygen on the primeval Earth. Geologists know from their analysis of the oldest known rocks that the oxygen level of the Earth’s early atmosphere had to be much higher than previously calculated. There is no scientific proof that Earth ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere such as Darwinists imagine. The primeval Earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed in an oxygen rich atmosphere, according to Dr. Jonathan Wells and Dr. John Morris. Therefore, the Miller experiment confirmed that life could never have evolved naturally without any intelligent creator or designer.


Analysis of amino acids and living systems show that only 20 of the over 2,000 types of amino acids are used in life. Amino acids come in two shapes: left-handed and right-handed. All amino acids in proteins are left-handed. Origin of life researchers always end up with a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. Researchers always observe the natural tendency for a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids to form. When an organism dies, its 100 percent left-handed amino acids begin to revert back to a mixture of left-handed and right-handedness. Therefore, the famous Miller experiment is known not to have produced all the necessary building blocks for life’s origin because the living cell and has great complexity and it is more complex than any advanced computer system, according to Dr. William Bonner. Only intelligence can build computers; therefore, intelligence must have created the first cell.


The probability calculations for life’s origination show that living systems could never have evolved under purely natural conditions. In other words, it would be easier to get heads every time we flip a coin than for life to evolve naturally.

If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be? The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time, according to Dr. Franis Crick. The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero, according to Dr. Robert Gange. The probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility and the chance that it could have happened anywhere in the universe is highly unlikely, according to Dr. David J. Rodabaugh.

Even giving macro-evolution every conceivable chance and even assuming that macro-evolution is 99.999 percent certain, then macro-evolution still have only 1 chance in 10 to 132 power of a chance of being likely under natural conditions. Therefore, even with the beginning assumption that macro-evolution is a virtual certainty, any conditional probability analysis of the fossil record alone results in the conclusion that evolution is a demonstrable absurdity, according to Dr. David J. Rodabaugh.

The science data show that all amino acids and proteins must get the right atoms, they must be arranged in the right order, and living systems must be left-handed. Computers and proteins show that Superfast computers would not have enough time to assemble a single protein naturally. The probability calculation for any primordial soup facilitating chemical evolution equals zero chance because of hydrolysis, left-handed amino acids, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates that life could never have evolved under purely natural conditions. While Darwinists argue that open and isolated systems can allow life’s origination and biological development, such as an animal’s embryo or a plant’s seed, intelligent design theorists argue for four necessary conditions. First, an open system is needed to sustain life. Second, an energy source is required to sustain life. Third, a mechanism for capturing and storing raw energy is necessary for the growth and development of life. And fourth, a mechanism designed for raw energy conversion into usable energy, according to Dr. Duane T. Gish.

In other words, there are no known Second Law of Thermodynamics violations. Ordinarily the Second Law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems, according to Dr. John Ross. Therefore, the Second Law influences things that are unfavorable to the life’s macro-evolutionary origins by natural processes alone such as oxygen in the atmosphere, randomly distributed left and right handed amino acids, and water or hydrolysis.


Information science and biological complexity indicates that intelligent design is the best explanation for life’s origins. The neo-Darwinian macro-evolutionary formula makes the hypothesis that matter plus energy plus time equals complex biochemical systems resulting from DNA, RNA, and proteins. The problem with this belief is that it has never been confirmed scientifically. However, the creation and intelligent design formula theorize that matter plus energy plus time plus outside Intelligence equals life. Scientific data supports the creation and intelligent design formula because naturalistic processes alone have never been demonstrated to create and design life from non-living matter, according to Dr. Jonathan Wells.

Since the findings of James D. Watson and Francis H. C. Crick, it was increasingly realized by contemporary researchers that the information residing in the cells is of crucial importance for the existence of life. Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life, would be forced to explain how the information originated. All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question, according to Dr. Werner Gitt.

The truth is macro-evolution from non-life is a form of scientific absurdity because years of biochemical experimentation on life’s origin in the chemical and molecular evolutionary fields have led to a better conceptualization of the problem’s enormity for life’s origination on planet Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance, according to Dr. Klaus Dose.

The origin of life is impossible by natural means because the chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747, according to Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe. Today, many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit they are baffled. They worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding, according to Dr. Paul Davies.

When Darwinists teach their students only part of the scientific evidence, many people who are illiterate in the scientific disciplines believe macro-evolutionists because they have not been taught the complete truth, but they have been indoctrinated with selective facts. However, when creation scientists and intelligent design theorists teach the complete truth about Darwinism and creationism, many people become informed enough to make an educated decision based upon the weight of scientific evidence. All science students should be taught objectively and truthfully to determine real science from religion.


The science data demonstrates that life’s origination from purely naturalistic processes is simply impossible. Darwinists, creationists, and intelligent design theorists are all looking at the same scientific evidence, but they are all reaching different conclusions. An increasing number of researchers within the scientific community believe in creation and intelligent design as their best explanation for life’s origin. While neither creation, intelligent design, nor macro-evolution can be proven absolutely, the weight of scientific data shows that the best explanation for life’s origination is the scientific theories for creation and intelligent design.


Charles Darwin; Michael Ruse; 2008.

Christian Apologetics; Doug Powell; 2006.

Decoding Your Genesis; Linda Tagliaferro and Dr. Mark Bloom; 1999.

Evolution; Dr. Greg Krukonis; 2008.

Evolution; Leslie Alan Horvitz; 2002.

In the Beginning Was Information; Dr. Werner Gitts; 1997.

Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature; Dr. Francis Crick; 1981.

Life Science; Lesley A. Du-Temple; 2000.

The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers; Dr. Klause Dose; 1988.

Threats on Life of Controversial Astronomer: New Scientists; 1982.

The 5th Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life; Dr. Paul Davis; 1999.




While Darwinists continue declaring their belief in human evolution from apes, the weight of scientific evidence demonstrates that humans share no common ancestry with great apes.

Where did we come from and why are we here? The weight of scientific evidence demonstrate that the claimed intermediate fossils between apes and humans do not confirm any common ancestry, Neanderthals were 100 percent human, Lucy and other australopithecines apes were not truly bipedal, and natural selection and mutations provide strong evidence against the pseudo-scientific doctrine of macro-evolution. Darwinian claims for human evolution from apes have not been supported by the scientific data. If human macro-evolution from primitive ape-like ancestors were true, anthropologists should observe evidence in the fossil record and they should have found a mechanism for this kind of dramatic transformation, according to Dr. Duane T. Gish and zoologist Frank Sherwin.

Evolutionists believe that modern human beings evolved from extinct nonhuman apelike ancestors. They argue that genetic evidence points to an evolutionary divergence between primeval humans and great apes lineages on the African continent about 6.5 million years ago. The earliest hominid (the human lineage) fossilized remains date back to roughly 4 million years ago in Africa and they are classified as genus Australopithecus. The next major evolutionary stage, classified as Homo habilis, occupied sub-Saharan Africa about 1.75 million years ago, according to Dr. Ian Tattersall and Dr. Phillip V. Tobias.

Darwinists argue Homo habilis appears to have been replaced by taller, more intelligent, and superior humanlike species, classified as Homo erectus, who lived from 1,500,000 to 200,000 years ago. Homo erectus gradually migrated into Asia and Europe. Between 600,000 and 200,000 years ago, Homo heidelbergensis lived in Africa, Europe, and Asia. Evolutionists argue that Homo erectus and modern human features indicate their evolutionary roots to Homo heidelbergensis. Neanderthals (Homo Neanderthals), who evolved from Homo erectus, occupied Europe and western Asia from 200,000 to 30,000 years ago. Darwinists believe that completely modern humans (H. sapiens) emerged in Africa roughly 150,000 years ago after evolving from directly from Homo erectus or from Homo heidelbergensis, according to Dr. Gail Kennedy.

However, creationists and intelligent design theorists reject these unscientific claims because scientific data show more evidence for an omniscient intelligence creator and designer for humankind. Analysis of the Darwinian claims, primate case studies, and the naturalistic mechanism for primate transformation demonstrate that human beings did not and could not have evolved from any apelike ancestor.


Darwinian ape-men claims show no scientific evidence for human evolution from any apelike ancestor. Nevertheless, macro-evolutionists argue that when we look closely at our hands, we see five flexible fingers on each hand. Animals with five flexible fingers are called primates. Monkeys, apes, and humans are good primate examples. Primates most likely evolved from small, insect eating rodent-like mammals that lived about 60 million years ago, according to Dr. Rinehart and Dr. Winston. All researchers agree on certain basic facts, which is we know, for example, that humans evolved from ancestors we share with other living primates such as chimpanzees and apes,” according to Dr. Miller and Dr. Levine. In other words, macro-evolutionists believe that human beings share a common ancestry with the great apes, such as Gorillas, orangutans, and Chimpanzees. However, fossil findings do not support their beliefs, according to Dr. Gary Parker and Dr. Duane T. Gish.


Macro-evolutionists claim that Java man is an evolutionary ancestor of modern man. Java man is the common name for fossilized Homo erectus remains found by Dr. Eugene Dubois near Trinil in Java during 1891. Java man’s remains included a skullcap and a thighbone. This finding represents the first known fossils of Homo erectus, according to many anthropologists. However, when Dr. Rudolph Virchow examined Dubois’ Java man fossil findings, he said that “in my opinion this creature was an animal, a giant gibbon, in fact. The thigh bone has not the slightest connection with the skull.” Dubois was known for keeping information hidden from other anthropologists. Dubois insisted that Java man was not a man but an animal intermediate to the gibbons and humans. Since the 1950s, anthropologists have been calling Java man Homo erectus, but they reject Dubois conclusions that this was an intermediate ancestor between apes and man, according to Dr. Duane T. Gish


Darwinists claimed that Piltdown man was an intermediate link between apes and humans. Its remains were found between 1908 and 1912 in Piltdown, England. They claimed that this finding was of a 500,000-year-old intermediate link between humans and apes. It was featured in academic science books and encyclopedias throughout Europe as the missing link between humans and apes. However, it

was discovered to be a fraud in 1953. The bones had been chemically stained to appear old and filed to fit together. The skull was shown to consist of a human cranium expertly joined to an orangutan’s jawbone. The hoax was probably committed either by the skull’s discoverer, Charles Dawson, or by a British Museum staff member, Martin A.C. Hinton, according Dr. Duane T Gish and others.


Another missing link claimed by Darwinists was Nebraska man. This fossil remain discovered in 1922 was used to support evolution in the 1925 Scopes Trail. Evolutionists claimed this fossil remain was a one-million year old missing link. However, following careful analysis by other Darwinists, the truth demonstrated that this fossil was the remains of an extinct pig’s tooth, according to Dr. Gary Parker.


Ramapithecus animals are related to the genus Sivapithecus, which are extinct primates. G. Edward Lewis found the animal’s upper jawbone and some teeth fragments in Siwalik Hills in northern India and he described them as Ramapithecus in the 1930s. For years, Darwinists presented this finding as modern man’s first direct ancestor. Eventually a baboon living in Ethiopia with similar dental and jaw structure to Ramapithecus was found in the 1970s. Ramapithecus was later dropped from the human line. Today evolutionists believe that Ramapithecus remains belong to any species in the Sivapithecus genus, which are the ancestors to the modern orangutans. For these reasons, scientific analysis of these “ape-men” revealed that Java man was completely human, Piltdown man was a clever hoax, Nebraska man was an extinct pig, and Ramapithecus was only an ape. Additionally, most of dates for these imaginary “ape men” were wrong, according to Dr. Gary Parker and zoologist Frank Sherwin.


A case study of Neanderthals and Australopithecines show no evidence for human evolution from any apelike ancestor. The weight of scientific evidence indicates that these fossilized remains were either apes or human beings.


Neanderthals were first found near Dusseldorf, Germany in 1856. Their remains were reconstructed by Darwinian anthropologists to appear more apelike, according to Dr. Jack Cuozzo. However, analysis of the scientific data shows that many Neanderthals’ brain sizes were larger than many modern humans (BTW: brain size has no relationship to superior intelligence). Neanderthals had thick brow ridges, short strong legs, and short powerful arms.

Neanderthals had strong muscle fibers and high bone density, which confirms their superior physical strength, according to physical anthropologist Dave Philips. Neanderthal people decorated themselves with jewelry, they played musical instruments, they made artistic cave paintings, they were capable of speech, and they buried their dead, according to Dr. Jack Cuozzo. Neanderthals probably reached sexual maturation in their late teens and they lived longer lives than previously thought, which are usually indicative of high intelligence, according to Dr. Jack Cuozzo.

“Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate,” according to physical anthropologist Dave Philips. Therefore, Neanderthals were 100 percent human beings and they were equal to modern humans in their intellectual powers.


Lucy is an australopithecine ape discovered in 1974 by Dr. Donald Johanson. His team of anthropologists found about 40 percent of the primate fossil remains. Dr. Johanson claimed it to be about 3.5 million years old. He claimed it to be bipedal primate (upright walking). However, scientific analysis of Lucy and other Australopithecines showed that these apes had no similarity in appearance to humans, the primates’ long arms are identical to chimpanzees, their Jaws are similar to chimpanzees, and their leg bones are similar to chimpanzees. Lucy and other australopithecines’ brain sizes are similar to chimpanzees, their large back muscles are designed for tree dwelling, their hands are similar to pygmy chimpanzees, and their feet are long and curved to hold branches and for claiming trees, according to anatomists Dr. Jack Stern, and Dr. Randall Susman.

A computer analysis concluded that Lucy could not walk upright and the primate probably walked like a chimpanzee because its walking mechanism was not developed, according to professor of anatomy and human biology Dr. Charles Oxnard and Dr. Christine Tardieu. Regardless of Lucy’s knee joint status, new evidence has come forth that Lucy has the morphology of a knuckle-walker, according to Dr. Richmand and Dr. Strait. The australopithecines known over the last several decades are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism. All of this information should make anthropologists wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory science publications, according Dr. Charles Oxnard and other leading experts on australopithecine fossils.

“The fossils provide much more discouragement than support for Darwinism when they are examined objectively, but objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist paleontology. The Darwinist approach has consistently been to find some supporting fossil evidence, claim it as proof for ‘evolution,’ and then ignore all the difficulties,” according to lawyer and Intelligent Design theorists Philip Johnson.

“Lucy seemed to be more of a promotion to convince the public that Johanson’s fossils were more important than Richard Leakey’s rather than any attempt to present an evenhanded assessment of current paleoanthropology,” according to William Fix. Therefore, the weight of scientific evidence demonstrates conclusively that Lucy and the Australopithecines were simply never human ancestors.


Darwinists believe that modern humans and the great apes evolved from a common apelike ancestor through the mechanism of natural selection and genetic mutations. Evolutionary changes occur when beneficial mutations happen within the primate populations. Natural selection selects this mutation over any existing genes or other detrimental mutations that code for this function. The mutation is inherited by some primate offspring and this process should add new genetic information.

Natural selection beautifully illustrates nature’s ability to facilitate adaptation to different environments and the survival mechanism for the fittest animals. However, while natural selection demonstrates the transformation of the species, the more animals change the more they remain the same because natural selection cannot cause one kind of animal to become a new kind of animal. Natural selection only allows for variations within plant and animal species and this mechanism only works with existing information. In other words, natural selection can act only on those biological properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptation requirements, according to Dr. Elmer Noble, Dr. Glenn Nobel, and Dr. Gerhard Schad. The very concept of natural selection as defined by the neo-Darwinist is fundamentally flawed, according to Dr. Neil Broom.

Darwinists believe that genetic mutations can create new information required for the evolution of apes into humans. However, scientific data shows that many mutations are detrimental to living systems and

they contribute to physical illness, but no macro-evolution creating new species. In other words, many mutations cause the loss of genetic information, the duplication of genetic information, but never the creation of completely new genetic information, according to Dr. Georgia Purdom.

“There is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution. There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution,” according to Dr. Jonathan Wells.

“Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially. These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function, but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed and along with the organism carrying it,” according to Dr. Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski.

“In all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it,” according to Dr. Lee Spetner. “The development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to be a hypothesis based on no evidence,” according to Dr. Ernst Chain.

“We see the apparent inability of mutations truly to contribute to the origin of new structures. The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information, which is a must for any theory of evolutionary mechanism,” according to Dr. Ray Bohlin. “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter,” according to Dr. Werner Gitt.


If the macro-evolutionary hypothesis describing human origins from an ape-like ancestor were based upon scientific facts, then we should observe solid evidence found in the fossil record where intermediates have been found and the mechanism for change showing how macro-evolution can create new genes that lead to new species. However,

modern scientific data has produced no such evidence. Today, “many schools proclaim as a matter of doubtless faith that man has evolved from the African apes. This is a falsehood which any honest scientist should protest against. It is not balanced teaching. That which science has never demonstrated should be erased from any textbook and from our minds and remembered only as a joke in bad taste. One should also teach people how many hoaxes have been plotted to support the theory of the ape origins of man,” according to Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti.


  • Creation Ex Nihilo; Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti; 1993.
  • Creation, Evolution, and Modern Science; Dr. Ray Bohlin; 2000.
  • Charles Darwin; Michael Ruse; 2009.
  • Darwinism on Trial; Philip Johnson; 1991.
  • Evidence that Humans Evolved from Knuckle-Walking Ancestor;Richmand and Strait; 2001.
  • Evolution; Lesie Alan Horvitz; 2002.
  • Evolution; Dr. Greg Krukonis;2008.
  • How Blind Is the Watchmaker; Dr. Neil Broom; 2001.
  • Icons of Evolution; Dr. Jonathan Wells; 2002.
  • In the Beginning was Information; Dr.Werner Gitt; 1997.
  • Not By Chance; Dr. Lee Spetner; 1997.
  • Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society;Dr. Ernst Chain; 1970.
  • Parasitology: The Biology of Animal Parasites; Dr. Elmer Noble and Others; 1989.
  • The Bone Peddlers; William Fix;1984.
  • The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates; Dr. Charles Oxnard; 1984,
  • Unraveling DNA; Dr. Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski; 1997.