Summary: The best explanation of the order found in the universe is not accident but by intelligent design
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose…. Physics books may be complicated, but... the objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book....
Later in the same chapter Richard Dawkins continues:
Each nucleus... contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all of the cells of the body put together.
We know that locomotives, bridges, and a huge number of other things exist in the physical world because the "design" for them previously existed in a mind. Some person designed them. Only the kind of skepticism that gives philosophy a deservedly bad name can suggest otherwise. That is why, if we stepped on an apparently uninhabited planet and discovered what, to all appearance, was a branch of the May Company or Sears--or even an empty coke bottle or a McDonald's hamburger wrapper--it would be flatly irrational, and maybe psychologically impossible, in the light of our experience, to believe that they came into existence without a design and a mind "containing" that design.
The naturalistic scientist insists that the idea of design has no place in science. In fact, however, several branches of science already use the concept of design or intelligence and have even devised tests for detecting the work of an intelligent agent. Consider forensic science. When police find a body, their first question is, Was this death the result of natural causes, or was it foul play (an intentional act by an intelligent being)? Likewise, when archaeologists uncover an unusually shaped rock, they ask whether the shape is a result of weathering, or whether the rock is a primitive tool, deliberately chipped by some Paleolithic hunter. When a cryptographer is given a page of scrambled letters, how does he determine whether it is just a random sequence or a secret code? When radio signals are detected in outer space, how do astronomers know whether it is a message from another civilization? In each case, there are straightforward tests for detecting the work of an intelligent agent.
In our workaday lives it is absolutely crucial to distinguish accident from design. We demand answers to such questions as, Did she fall or was she pushed? Did someone die accidentally or commit suicide? Was this song conceived independently or was it plagiarized? Did someone just get lucky on the stock market or was there insider trading?
I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.
In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views.
Dr. Patrick Glynn sums up the evidence:
Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster."
The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).
A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.
If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life.
The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery (a point noticed by one of the forerunners of anthropic reasoning in the nineteenth century, Harvard biologist Lawrence Henderson). Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to unique properties in the hydrogen atom.
The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an "astonishing" coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the center of the stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long.
Summary: Darwinism enables atheism, devalues humankind, and fosters meaninglessness, sexual immorality, racism, and Nazism
"I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when
Richard Dawkins: "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from an agnostic position and towards atheism."
English novelist and evolution advocate Aldous Huxley:
Like so many of my contemporaries, I took it for granted that there was no meaning [to life]. This was partly due to the fact that I shared the common belief that the scientific picture of an abstraction from reality was a true picture of reality as a whole; partly also to other, non-intellectual reasons. I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.
Evolutionist Colin Patterson:
The message of evolution is that we are not unique. We are animals, members of the same lineage as the woodlouse and the shrew. We are social mammals, and as such our purpose is not merely to reproduce, yet our racial pride or patriotism and our social striving may be no more or less commendable than the tribal loyalty of baboons.
Evolutionist Aldous Huxley:
For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom....
In The Descent of Man
At a mass meeting in 1934, Nazi Deputy Party Leader Rudolf Hess coined the popular Nazi phrase, "National Socialism is nothing but applied biology."
Summary: The Bible is unique, should be read with an open mind and is reliable
The Bible is not one book but 66 books with approximately 40 authors written over 1400 years.
In examining the evidences of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor, to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin.
Sir Frederic G. Kenyon wrote, "In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament."
He concluded that "the interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."
The New Testament, as an ancient document with over 5,000 early copies, dwarfs Homer whose works are second to the Bible with 643 early copies. In turn, Homer has more ancient copies than all the copies of Caesar, Livy, Plato (Tetralogies) Tacitus (Annals), Pliny the Younger (History) Thucydides (History), Aristotle, Demosthenes, Aristophenes, Sophocles and several others.
The first inquiry, when an ancient document is offered in evidence in our courts, is whether it comes from the proper repository; that is, whether it is found in the place where, and under the care of persons with whom such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which gives the authenticity to documents found within it. If they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes that they are genuine, and they are admitted to be read in evidence, unless the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them. The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection.