As we explore science, there are some things we can know with a high level of confidence. Many scientists (and yes, atheist scientists) are concluding that neo-Darwinism (DNA mutation via survival of the fittest) may not fully explain all the data we have. The probabilities of evolution occurring through this method alone are staggeringly low, to the point of bordering on impossible. Additionally, the fossil record shows instances of significant changes occurring abruptly, rather than gradually over time. As a result, scientists are exploring additional factors in the evolutionary process that will coincide with the data. Obviously, atheists are not abandoning evolution (after all they have no other option), but are instead saying other processes participated in the evolution process working together with neo-Darwinism. The exact nature of these mechanisms is currently uncertain, and there is no adequate naturalistic explanation. The data can more strongly be associated with intelligent design rather than a random process. Not because of a god-in-the-gaps argument, but because the data ever increasingly supports fine-tuning and design, which also continues to lower the probabilities for neo-Darwinism alone to explain the data. There are two ways atheists overcome these increasingly low probabilities. They either look at the directive power of science or rely on the multi-verse.

Many proposals have been presented to explain this discrepancy with the data and rely on the directive power of the scientific laws to address the challenges posed by the increasingly lowering probabilities. Basically for evolution to occur, it appears that science is inherently structured to make evolution an inevitable consequence. This notion raises foundational questions. Does the ever-increasing evidence for something directive in evolution point more toward atheism or intelligent design? And why is it that the more we grow in our understanding of science, the more evidence for fine-tuning? This ever-increasing evidence for fine-tuning is increasing the need for the directive force of science to account for these probabilities.

And this is the conundrum: how can we reconcile the probabilities and disparities between the data and theories while maintaining a completely random process? Atheists are left scrambling for an explanation. Though not established to explain this problem, the multiverse hypothesis is becoming an ever-increasing necessity to overcome this paradox, to account for fine-tuning and still allow for random chance.

In science, when there are differing explanations of the data, we do not throw them out in favor for our pet explanation or dogma. The differing explanations are held on to till the data can prove which ones to throw. The atheist, rather than being open to different explanations, rejects intelligent design outright, and holds onto the faith that though we currently do not have an explanation, science which has and continues to explain unknown things will provide these missing puzzle pieces in the future. And I am not saying this is wrong, maybe science will one day explain the ever-increasing fine-tuning and design we find. In fact, I expect it to be the case. Christianity does not hinge on whether or not there are scientific explanations or not. I assume that God, who is not chaotic, made the universe with science. Christianity has the freedom to be neutral and unbiased in any future endeavors to provide a scientific explanation for our universe. This allows Christians to truly be free to appreciate science without conflict. Science does not diminish our sense of wonder and awe of God. Unlike the atheists, we do not have only one necessary conclusion when it comes to the origin of life. But what has been clear is that atheists are forced to ignore the consistent, repeatable, and ever-growing evidence of fine-tuning and design that points to the possibility of intelligent design.

We must be careful in our language. I am not saying there is 100% proof, but that there is consistent evidence, nonetheless, that should not be ignored for intelligent design. It should be noted that as our scientific knowledge expands the stronger and stronger the case for intelligent design becomes. This is the opposite of what we would expect if intelligent design were a “god of the gaps” argument. Atheists would expect that the more we know about science, that science would fill in these gaps (the “science in the gaps” argument). The gaps in the science of evolution are increasing, not diminishing the more we know. And that pattern increases not diminishes even with the introduction of a possible multiverse.

When atheists say there is no evidence for intelligent design, they are putting on blinders and relying on blind faith that science will one day solve this dilemma, despite the evidence to the contrary. They are putting dogma before the data when they do not allow this possibility. They do not have to agree with it, but to say there is no evidence for intelligent design is ignoring the data. It is an irony that they are stunned by doing the very thing they accuse others of. But this kind of hypocrisy is common in atheist arguments. Science does not let go of a possibility, simply because they do not like it, but it allows for different explanations of the data, till more evidence allows for a more definitive direction. Blind faith however is ignoring a possibility despite the mounting evidence. Granted atheists may believe that one day evidence will go more their way and this consistent and repeatable pattern of increasing improbability will be overcome. But this stance is one of faith and relying on the science of the gaps. Science on the other hand is neutral. Science does not draw those conclusions, people with their biases do. Do we have 100% proof intelligent design is true? No. Does science say we won’t have an explanation? No. But the evidence for intelligent design is stronger than the atheist would lead others to believe.

Regardless of one’s position, whether atheist or theist, what neither of us can say is that the puzzle pieces that make our specific universe what it is don’t intricately come together in a fine-tuned dance that allows all that we know to exist. Even if there is an infinite multiverse with all probabilities playing out, in our specific universe this is clearly the case. Science does not provide alternatives to this, nor will further scientific discoveries diminish this intricate dance. Based on consistent and repeatable evidence, we can have confidence that the evidence for this will only get stronger the more we know about our universe. Nor does a multiverse diminish this. The criteria required for a multiverse generator remain complex and awe-inspiring. It advances the argument for fine-tuning rather than diminishing it. While there may be differing opinions regarding whether this suggests the existence of a deity, science compels us to appreciate the intricate fine-tuned nature of the universe. Science does not allow us to ignore this intricate beautiful and awe-inspiring dance. If the world was filled with unicorns or magic, we would lose our wonder of these things. I would argue science is more wondrous and miraculous than unicorns or magic.

Because of this evidence and data, atheists can’t say with integrity that a Christian does not follow the evidence or that the Christian is anti-science or that the Christian bases their beliefs on blind faith or that the Christian puts dogma over data. The Christian position has a robust foundation based on scientific principles. The Christian faith allows us to embrace the data rather than ignore it. God using science does not take away from our wonder and awe of who he is. Despite what atheists would like us to believe, science does not pose a threat to the Christian faith and the Christian faith is not blind.

There are two possibilities for existence – an eternal cyclic/cause & effect system or something that is beyond matter or time or quantum physics and all that we know, that is eternal and self-existent. We don’t see any evidence for a cyclic/cause & effect system, as far as we know the universe will petter out. But we do see strong evidence of a universe that is created with fine tuning, and we don’t have an adequate eternal cyclic explanation. Things like the multi-verse only increase the fine-tuning needed and leave us empty with an eternal cyclic construct. And so, the irony is that atheists’ scientific explanations like multi-verse and evolution only increase the need for the fine-tuning of the universe in order to occur. If we want to stand where the current evidence is strongest, one that points to fine-tuning, believing in God, is not appealing to “the God of the gaps”, but following what is supported by the current evidence we have in science. Atheists on the other hand instead of acknowledging this evidence, because of their unbelief, are forced to appeal to the fact that it only “appears” to be fine-tuned and that the “science of the gaps” will someday switch from providing more and more evidence for fine-tuning to finally just explaining it away. How long will it take for this argument to be proven or for the atheists to decide that it is futility. I suppose we will see.

Yes, with nothing, there is no matter, motive, energy, different dimension for nothing to work with to become something.

But there is something . . .

Even scientists who say that something can come from nothing are not talking about nothing but instead are talking about another type of something. So, we are still left with the dilemma, how did something come to exist.

Since something cannot come from nothing, to have something, something must have always existed eternally in the past are more properly outside of time. Not only must there have always been something, but if there is change, then there must always have been the ability to inact change. For a something that exists eternally and yet does not change will always not change, for there is no magical force that can appear out of nothing separate from this something to cause it to change. After all, how does something that has not changed from all eternity past suddenly change? So, something must be eternal and the ability to act and cause change must be eternal. Could it be nature? Nature has no desire or will to move or change. It will not move, unless eternally moving. So, nature would need a system of perpetual motion to eternally have both something and action, perhaps a cyclic existence. The sacred name of God is Yahweh, meaning “I am”. He was and is and is to come. God claims to be the only one who is self-existent and the one who created time itself, and unlike nature being personal, he has a will and not only eternally exists but eternally is able to act and is not subject to time. God has both a “divine nature” and “eternal power”, the very things we would expect if there is something.

I don’t present this as something to prove God’s existence. I don’t want to make a claim like that, lightly. I don’t feel like I have thought through all of this well enough to make that claim. But it is only prudent to take the time to meditate on these things and let them sink in.

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20, ESV)

Additional point that shows this is Paul’s intent: Romans knew Paul’s statement to be true

O LORD, how manifold are your works!
In wisdom have you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
(Psalm 104:24,ESV)

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse”. (Romans 1:20, ESV)

I think this is important to remember as we are pilgrims in this world corrupted by sin. May we make a stand and make His glory evident in this evil generation and in all places.