An Argument for
Special Creation
John Oakes
Christian Evidences Conference
June 12, 2009
Natural Creation
Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s “bulldog”
“We are as much the
product of blind
forces as is the falling
of a stone to earth, or
the ebb and flow of
the tides. We have
just happened, and
man was made flesh
by a series of
singularly beneficial
accidents.”
Special Creation: Homo sapiens or Homo divinus?
What are the limits of science?
What are the limits of scripture?





Science and religion
Science and religion
Science and religion
Science and religion
Science and Religion
Science
The use of experiment to test theories about the
laws of nature.
Science





Scientific knowledge is a relationship between
observations
Scientific knowledge is quantitative
The observations are subject to refinement
Scientific knowledge is progressive and tentative
Scientific knowledge is neither true nor false, but
rather consistent with the observations and
consistent with prior knowledge
Religion




Religion is a belief in something
The belief is not necessarily substantiated by
physical or material evidence
Religious knowledge obtained through holy
writings, authority, revelations and religious
experiences
Believers have faith or trust in such knowledge
Religion




Religious knowledge is qualitative not
quantitative.
Religious knowledge is not gotten through
measurement
In religion knowledge is taken as either true or
false.
Religious knowledge is neither progressive, nor
tentative.
Questions Science Can Answer





When?
What?
Where?
How many?
By what means?
Questions Science Cannot Answer:
(That Religion Does Answer)
Why am I here?
 Is that the right thing to do?
 How valuable am I?
 Does God exist? Does God act (theism)?
 Will that God respond if I pray?
 Do supernatural events (miracles) happen?

Is prayer simply chemicals moving around in the brain?
If “God is love,” then is God just the firing of particular
neurons?
Science, being incapable of answering the question of
meaning, will always give the impression of meaninglessness,
even though such a conclusion requires metaphysics. As
Torrance notes, “patterns may be created [by science] but
not meaning...” Naturally, science should not be forced into
answering this question – it should be allowed to perform its
task under the guise of materialism, even if this results in
meaninglessness. Science can never be permitted to insert
supernatural or metaphysical explanations into its theories:
What you see depends on your “world view.”

The Christian world view predicts that a human brain will
be designed so that those made in God’s image can
experience love, joy, anger, compassion, spirituality,
jealousy, empathy, oneness and other feelings, some of
which have an extremely dubious evolutionary advantage.

A statement a scientist should not make (if he or she is well trained
and is not manipulating you):


Evolution is true.
The Big Bang happened.

Better statements:

The theory of evolution is by far the best model we have to explain
both the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence with regard to the
origin of all species.
The Big Bang model is in dramatic agreement will all known facts
about the origin and history of the universe.


Science seeks consistency, not “truth.” What is the simplest and
most consistent explanation of the observation.
Assumptions of Science

There exists a single, unchanging set of laws which
govern all events in the physical universe.

Human beings are able to understand the workings of
the physical universe.

The laws which govern the universe are describable by
mathematics.
Predictions Based on Christian Theology:
1. The universe will follow a single, unchanging set of laws.
2. The universe will be understandable to human beings.
3. The universe will be describable by mathematics.
4. The universe will be designed so that we can observe it
- (“The Priveleged Planet” Gonzalez and Richards)
Basic Assumptions of Science

Assumptions are accepted without proof

Form the basis of all scientific thinking

In other words, the basic assumptions of science are
accepted on faith.
Conclusions about Science and
Religion

Religion and science ask different kinds of questions
and define words differently

Religion and science appear as if they were two
incommensurate paradigms addressing the identical
information area

Are they “Non-Overlapping Magisteria? (NOMA) as
Stephen Jay Gould suggests? No! They inform one
another to an important extent.
Unanswered questions which seem to
relate to science

Origin of life

Origin of the universe. Why is there anything (as opposed to
nothing)?

Why is this a Goldilocks Universe?

Consciousness

What is a person? Am I a body or do I have a body? Am I a
brain or do I have a brain?
Galileo Galilei
(1564-1642)
“The Bible was written to
tell us how to go to heaven,
not how the heavens go”
“In discussions of physical
problems we ought to begin
not from the authority of
scriptural passages, but from
the sense-experiences and
necessary demonstrations.”
Galileo on Revelation

“For the Holy Bible and the phenomena of nature
proceed alike from the divine Word, the former as the
dictate of the Holy Spirit and the latter as the observant
executor of God’s commands.” (the debate over this view
rages even today)

Is there such a thing as Natural Revelation/General
Revelation? (as opposed to special revelation) In other
words, can we gather genuine knowledge of God from
looking at his creation?
Evolution and the Bible

What does the Bible say? Not much!

What does the physical evidence say?





Fossil evidence
Biogeography
Genetic/DNA evidence
“Irreducible Complexity?”
Human evolution?
The Wallace Line
Finches discovered
And drawn by
Charles Darwin
Evidence of
Evolution?
Evolution of whales over time?
Fossil evidence for elephant evolution
Horse ancestry
But………..

The Cambrian Explosion

“Punctuated Equilibrium?”

Theistic Evolution?
Fossils
from
creatures
which
appeared
in the
“Cambrian
Explosion”
Human
chromosome #2
and Great Ape
chromosome #2 a,
2b: evidence for
common descent.
More Genetic Evidence for Common Descent

Pseudogenes

Vitamin C Pseudogene in great apes and humans

Retroposons, SINEs (short interspersed elements), etc.

Viral insertions
table 1
Chimpanzee
Gene sequence that
codes for protein
Random DNA segment
between genes
100%
98%
Dog
99%
52%
Mouse
99%
40%
Chicken
75%
4%
Fruitfly
60%
~0%
Roundworm
35%
~0%
Typical random point mutation rates are about 1x10-5 –
1x10-7 mutations/generation.
5 million years = 250,000 generations.
Sufficient for random mutations to explain the change
without the intervention of a guiding hand?
Some Tentative Conclusions

Evolution has happened. Microevolution has been observed.

Fossil evidence strongly supports the idea of change over time, but that
change often happens in surprisingly sudden bursts (punctuated
equilibrium). The Cambrian explosion raises real questions.

Genetic evidence gives very strong support to the idea of common
descent.

Like it or not, this is true of humans as well.

Statistical and other arguments give support for evolution being
theistic, rather than deistic, but this is not a scientific argument.

God invented evolution; let us give him credit for a great idea.
Here is the big question:

Is the nearly overwhelming evidence in support of
common descent strong evidence against special
creation of;



Life itself
Adam and Eve
My answer: No! Science literally cannot answer the
question of special creation.
Warning!

My arguments for special creation are not scientific
(although they use science at some points).
Why I believe in special creation








Because it is biblical.
Because life itself almost without doubt was a special creation.
I do not buy the God-of-no-gaps argument.
Theism vs Deism: consistent theology
Because miracles have happened.
I am cautious about the metaphorical interpretation of Genesis.
New Testament writers believed in special creation of Adam and
Eve and their descendents.
Because I am biased.
I. Because it is biblical

Luke 3:8

John 2:1-11

John 6:1-15

The virgin birth of Jesus
II. Life itself is a special creation

Warning! This is a God-of-the-gaps argument!

Evolution and the creation of life are completely separate
issues

As a chemist and as a physicist, I am thoroughly convinced
that life is a special creation.

This argument is about as strong as the Anthropic
Argument itself.
“It is mere rubbish
to think at this
point of the origin
of life. One might
as well think of the
origin of matter.”
Charles Darwin
DNA
a)
b)
Protein
Simplest life form: break it down
• E. coli: about 1 trillion bits of information.
• E. coli have 3000-4000 different proteins.
• DNA and RNA to make and be made by
these proteins.
• Lipids (membrane), Carbohydrates, etc.
• The simplest living cell is an unimaginably
complex self-regulating nano factory
Fred Hoyle on Living Things
“The chance that higher life forms might
have emerged [by chance] is comparable
with the chance that a tornado sweeping
through a junk-yard might assemble a
Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”
The Teleological Argument
Boeing 747
Design or
Accident?
Nature creates order, but not information
A House of
Cards: Order
and
Information.
A much better
analogy for
living things.
III. I do not buy the God-of-no-gaps argument

Francis Collins: In the physical realm, a God of no gaps is
to be preferred on theological grounds.

Question: Can science answer the question of whether
there are in fact gaps?

Is the Christian wise or well-justified scientifically to make
a naturalistic assumption with regard to the creation of life,
evolution and the creation of human beings?

I say no!!!
A gap argument: Intelligent Design

Irreducible Complexity Does this “disprove
evolution?”
Beware of “God of the Gaps” arguments.
 Is ID “scientific”? Do they do experiments?
Are their conclusions refutable by an
experiment?

IV. Theology (cont.) Deism or Theism?

Is God’s relationship with history deistic or theistic?

Is God’s relationship with individual humans deistic or theistic?

Is God’s relationship with nature deistic or theistic?

Do we have two different Gods here?
Sir Isaac Newton
(1642-1727)
“The Mechanical
Universe”
Is God merely the
primary mover?
Is naturalistic deism a
“slippery slope”?
Statue of Joseph Priestley
Founder of the Unitarian Church
LaPlace
(1749-1827)
About God:
“I have no
need of that
hypothesis”
V. Because Miracles Happen

Apparently, God DOES intervene and “break” the laws of
nature at times.

Is there some scientific, philosophical or religious principle
which precludes even the possibility that God did this with
regard to how life progressed?

Is it established by science that God did not miraculously
intercede to create Homo divinus?
Miracles of timing?
John 6: Miraculous generosity?
Mark 4:35-41 Calming the storm.
What about Lazarus? What about
Jesus?
Did God really create Adam and
Eve?
So… Miracles Happen

It being established that miracles happen, why the problem
with the miraculous creation of life and of Adam and Eve?
Does science prove that this did not happen?

Why the naturalist assumption?
VI. Is Genesis 1-10 historical or metaphorical?

Biologos: The “Everyman” Reading.



The Fall did not happen.
The story of Adam and Eve is the story of all of us.
So, what did happen?




Were Adam and Eve the first Homo sapiens?
Did God create Adam and Eve, later releasing them into a world
populated by intelligent primates?
Did God take evolved Homo sapiens and change them into
Homo divinus? (making them into his image)
I don’t know, and as a scientist, I cannot know!
VII. New Testament Writers Believed in Special
Creation and the Historicity of Genesis







Luke 3:37 Adam and Seth (and David and Jesus)
Romans 5:14 Adam
2 Corinthians 11:3 Eve
Luke 11:51, Hebrews 11:4 Abel
I John 3:12 Cain
Hebrews 11:5 Enoch
2 Peter 3:6 Noah. The second coming is as real as the
flood.
A counter-argument:

Don’t you take Genesis 1:1-31 Metaphorically?

No: I take it non-literally, but not metaphorically.

Aren’t Adam and Eve symbols?

Yes! Absolutely! So are Abraham, Isaac, Moses and David,
but they are also historical.
VIII. Because I am biased.

When in doubt, I lean toward accepting the obvious
implications of scientifically-derived conclusions.

However, I do not give the benefit of the doubt to
naturalism.

When in doubt, I lean toward accepting the Bible literally
and historically, not metaphorically.
The Conservative Christian Reaction
Scopes “monkey trial” 1925
Clarence Darrow and
William Jennings
Bryan
1940’s and afterward:
Creationism Movement
Very Bad Science!
Can Science and Religion peacefully coexist?

The Language of
God
Reasons Collins believes in God
1. There is something instead of nothing.
2. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.
3. The Big Bang.
4. Nature does not solve the problem of why.
5. The existence of time.
6. Fine tuning of the universe. The “Goldilocks
Paradox.”
7. Ockham’s Razor.
8. The existence of moral law.
Genesis Chapter One: Creation





Young Earth Theory
 In agreement with science
 With an appearance of age (disagrees with science)
Day/Age Theory
Framework Theory
 Literary rather than historical account. Days 1-3 and 4-6 are
parallel triads describing how God created the heavens (1,4),
the seas and land(2,5) and life (3,6)
Gap Theory
 A huge “gap” of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
It’s all just a myth
Each view has its problems
A Quick Summary of Genesis One:
a. God pre-existed the universe
b. God created the universe: “Let there be light”
c. God created the earth
d. God created life
e. Last of all, God created mankind
A More Detailed Summary of Genesis One
From the Viewpoint of an Observer on the Earth:
a. The earth created and is spinning: night and day. Day 1
b. Water covers earth, Very thick atmosphere forms. Day 2
c. The earth cools, land appears out of the water. Day 3
d. Life appears on the earth. Day 3
e. (Photosynthetic life dramatically changes the chemistry of the
atmosphere from reducing to oxidizing.)
f. Finally, the heavenly objects appeared in the sky Day 4
g. More advanced life forms; first in the water, later on the land Day 5
h. Even more advanced life forms. Last of all human beings Day 6
Where is the scientific error in this?
Is Genesis 1:1 a Myth?

Yes! It is a true myth.
 A myth is a simplified story, given to explain the gods (or God)
to common people.
Creation Myths

Babylonian Creation Myth


Egyptian Creation Myth


Primeval ocean “Nun” from which arrises a Primeval hill.
Greek Creation Myth


Primeval swamp. Marduk kills Tiamat. Blood + mud = humans
Prometheus and Epimetheus form clay molds. Earth supported by Atlas.
Iroquois Creation Myth

Enigorio and Enigohahetgea: Good and evil brothers battle
Genesis One is an obvious exception to this pattern
Babylonian Creation Myth:
Marduk kills Tiamat
Egyptian Creation Myth
Iroquois Creation Myth:
Enigorio and Enigohahetgea Battling the
Ronnongwetowanca (Stone Giants)
Is the Metaphorical Day a Reasonable
Interpretation?
Pre-Science Theologians Who Said Yes.

Philo 1st century

Origen early 3rd century

Augustine early 5th century

Thomas Aquinas 13th century
Translations of yom in the Old Testament (NIV)








1181 times as “day” (but with several different connotations of the
word, some not being literal)
 Isaiah 4:2 In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful…
67 times as “time”
30 times as “today”
18 times as “forever”
10 times as “continuously”
6 times as “age”
4 times as “life”
2 times as “perpetually”
The Anthropic Principle

The laws of nature are what they are and the
fundamental constants which underlie them have
the values they have by design; in order that
advanced life forms, such as humans, can exist in
the universe.
Aristotle → Copernicus → Herschel →
Hubble  Aristotle?
Is the “universe” getting smaller again?
Two Versions of the Anthropic Principle


WAP Weak Anthropic Principle. The
properties of the universe must be extremely
precisely fine-tuned so that galaxies, stars, planets,
life, and especially advanced self-conscious beings
can exist. In fact, the universe has these
necessary finely tuned properties.
SAP Strong Anthropic Principle. WAP is true
and this is not a coincidence. It must be because
there exists a purposeful designer who
intentionally created the universe we live in so that
we could experience it.
Richard Dawkins

In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt and
other people are going to get lucky: and you won’t
find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The
universe we observe has precisely the properties we
should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind,
pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares.
DNA just is, and we dance to its music.
Accident or Design?
The Anthropic Principle
William
Paley

Flew is increasingly persuaded
that some sort of Deity brought
about this universe. He says he
has in mind something like the
God of Aristotle, a distant,
impersonal "prime mover." It
might not even be conscious,
but a mere force. In formal
terms, he regards the existence
of this minimal God as a
hypothesis that, at present, is
perhaps the best explanation
for why a universe exists that
can produce complex life
Physics:
The Finely Tuned Universe
Fine Tuning of the
Gravitational Constant
.00000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000001
Gravity


Dominant force on astronomical size scale.
Need very close balance of gravity and cosmic
expansion for stable universe.
If gravity weaker by 1 in 1060, universe expands too
quickly, no galaxies or stars.
 If gravity stronger by 1 in 1060, universe collapses
without forming galaxies or stars.


Gravity is fine-tuned to 1 part in 1060.
Fine Tuning of the Universe
Constant
A Little Bigger
A Little Smaller
1. Gravitational constant
very short-lived stars
no stars
2. Ratio of electrons to protons
no stars or galaxies
no stars or galaxies
3. Strong Nuclear Force
no hydrogen, fusion
only hydrogen
4. Weak Nuclear Force
all H2  He at big bang
no He at big bang
no heavy elements
5. Electric Force
no chemical bonding
no chemical bonding
6. Expansion rate of universe
no galaxies
universe collapses quickly
7. Ratio of matter to antimatter
too much radiation for life not enough matter
for galaxies to form
and many more….
The Strong Force




Holds nucleus together.
5% weaker, no deuterium, stars won’t burn
5% stronger, diproton stable, stars explode
The strong force is tuned to ±5% on the basis
of these considerations alone.
The Weak Force




Holds neutron together.
Few % weaker, few neutrons, little He, few
heavy elements; even these stay trapped in stars.
Few % stronger, too many neutrons, too much
He, too many heavy elements; but these, too,
stay trapped in stars.
The weak force is tuned to a few percent.
Electromagnetism





Both repulsive & attractive, due to existence of
positive & negative charges.
+ and – charges must be almost exactly equal in
number, to better than one part in 1040.
Yet protons (+) and electrons (-) drastically different
in mass, and froze out at quite different times in the
early universe.
If not for this equality, electromagnetic forces would
dominate gravity, so no galaxies, no stars, no planets.
Electromagnetic forces tuned to one part in 1040.
Summary on Fine-Tuning



Combining these cases gives fine-tuning of better than
one part in 10100.
Do we really have any evidence for 10100 universes to
make this likely merely by chance?
How big is 10100?



There are estimated to be some 1080 elementary particles in
our universe.
So we need to 1020 universes to get 10100 particles.
Imagine the chances of randomly picking one marked
particle from all these universes!
A finely-tuned
instrument
built by
humans. Good
to one part in a
billion?
Fred Hoyle on Fine-Tuning
“… a super-intellect has monkeyed with
physics, as well as with chemistry and
biology.”
The Right Kind of Galaxy
Spiral
Irregular
Eliptical
The Right Galaxy



Our galaxy is a spiral, which produces stars over
much of its history.
Not an elliptical, where star formation ends
before there are many heavy elements.
Not an irregular, where radiation events would
have destroyed life.
The Right Sun: Location

Right distance from center of galaxy:



Right relation to supernovae:



Closer – too much radiation, disruptive gravity
Further – too few heavy elements
More or closer – exterminate life
Less or further – too few heavy elements
Right number of stars in system


Zero – pretty cold!
Two or more – unstable orbits if planets at all.
The Right Kind of Star
The Goldilocks Star
The Right Sun: Character

Mass in right range:
Heavier – luminosity changes too quickly
 Lighter – life zone too narrow, tidal forces too large


Temperature (color) in right range:
Redder – insufficient photosynthesis
 Bluer – insufficient photosynthesis


The Sun’s main radiation is right in the region
where our atmosphere is transparent.
The Right Kind of Planet
Right distance
Rocky planet with plenty of
oxygen and water
Thin, light planetary “crust”
(allowing for plate
tectonics)
Huge moon for stable
planetary rotation
Tilted axis to spread
energy around
The Right Planet: Temperature

Varies substantially on Earth, but:
Only a few spots above boiling
 Some below freezing




Contrast Venus, about 900 oF (500 oC).
Contrast Mars, barely above freezing in
midsummer at the equator.
Earth is warm enough for water to be liquid,
cool enough not to destroy biomolecules.
The Right Moon: Size &
Distance



Our Moon is unique in the Solar System, one of
the largest, and by far the largest compared with
its planet.
If it were smaller (or further away), Earth’s
climate would be unstable, and tides too small
for mixing.
If it were larger (or closer), tidal effects on
Earth’s rotation, ocean & atmosphere too large.
The Right Moon & Earth’s Crust



If Earth’s crust thicker, it would eat up the
atmospheric oxygen.
If Earth’s crust thinner, too much volcanism
and plate movement.
The Moon apparently formed from the Earth’s
crust, when we were struck by a Mars-sized
planet, a very flukey event!
Water
1. Ideal solvent to support life (dissolves ions and
molecules
2. Right boiling and melting points
3. High specific heat
4. Solid floats on liquid
5. Contracts from 0 to 4 degrees centigrade
Designed Elements?
Carbon: The Central Element of
Life
3-D molecules
Large, complex yet flexible
molecules
Iron: an essential element
The Ozone Layer:
Is oxygen a designed element?
No uranium, no plate tectonics
Scientific Materialism

Only that which can be observed and measured
through the technique of Scientific Method is
real, and everything else is unreal.
Scientism

Scientism is the acceptance of scientific
theory and scientific methods as applicable
in all fields of inquiry about the world,
including morality, ethics, art, and religion
Scientific Materialism

Scientific Materialism accepts only one reality: the
physical universe, composed as it is of matter and
energy. Everything that is not physical, measurable,
or deducible from scientific observations, is
considered unreal. Life is explained in purely
mechanical terms, and phenomena such as Mind
and Consciousness are considered nothing but
epiphenomena - curious by-products, of certain
complex physical processes (such as brain
metabolism)
Materialism

“We exist as material beings in a material
world, all of whose phenomena are the
consequences of material relations among
material entities." In a word, the public needs
to accept materialism, which means that they
must put God in the trash can of history
where such myths belong.”
Richard Lewontin
Retrospective essay on Carl Sagan in the January 9, 1997 New York Review of
Books,
If Materialism/Naturalism is right then:

“I” do not exist. Consciousness is just random moving
around of chemicals.

No soul, no spirit, no non-physical reality.

Belief in God is just a “meme” the unfortunate accidental
result of brain evolution.

Life has no value. Human beings have no value. What is
value?

Love is chemicals moving around (vs. God is love)
Scientific Materialism










There is no God,
No angels
No Devil
No good
No evil
No survival of physical death,
No non-physical realities, and
No ultimate meaning or purpose to life
No Heaven
No afterlife
A Response to Naturalism/Materialism/Scientism

It is a faith/religious belief based on circular
reasoning.

It is patently and demonstrably false.

It is dangerous. It is very bad philosophy.
Circular Reasoning
Unprovable assumptions of science:
There exist universal and inviolable natural laws.
The universe is observable and understandable.
The universe is governed by mathematically precise
laws.
None of these assumptions can be proved by experiment. In
a sense, science is not scientific.
A recent BBC broadcast forum:

Questioner: How do you know that physical reality is all
there is: that there is no God?

Response of a vehement materialist (after much prodding):
I simply believe it to be true.

Questioner: Well, now we at least have it out on the table!

In other words, the strongest argument I have that physical
reality is “all there is” is that I believe physical reality is “all
there is.”
Materialism is Patently False Because….

The universe was created.

Life was created.

The Anthropic Principle. The universe is ridiculously well
fine-tuned for us to exist.

Even the materialist believes in good and evil (for example,
religion is evil)

The Bible is inspired by God.
If the Materialist is right, then…

Religious thought is absolute nonsense. Prayer is
chemical moving around in your brain.

Art, Literature, Music have no intrinsic value.

Justice is a meaningless word.

Human rights have no basis.

Etc….
Naturalism is a Dangerous (Evil?) Philosophy
If the naturalist is right then:

Good and evil are meaningless ideas.

Stealing is not wrong.

Any kind of sexual behavior as right or wrong as any other.

There is nothing evil about genocide.

Racism is not only acceptable, it is supported.
If the Materialist is Right Then…

Violence and greed are acceptable behavior.

Justice is a meaningless construct.

The words “ought and should” are meaningless.

There is no such thing as sin or wrong behavior.

Consider the only societies in human history
controlled by atheists. USSR, Communist China,
Khmer Rouge….

Is this where human beings want to head?