This was a paper Adam Ryan wrote for his AP English class.
Is murder morally wrong? Most would answer with an absolute yes, but why? Who decided its turpitude? If there is no standard to which the act of murder is compared then Hitler should not be condemned as an evil murderer, but rather someone who openly expressed his feelings toward Jews in a way he thought was proper but everyone else thought was wicked. Well, that is just preposterous! You might say. But, that is exactly the philosophy of this post-modern world we live in today. To one’s personal interest it may seem appealing, but as an investigation is furthered, the discrepancies start to be revealed. These discrepancies mark the fallacies of the post-modern philosophy and give a startling and astonishing evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer and sovereign ruler, namely, God. It is clearly seen that the existence of God can be proven by something other than mere personal experience.
In a debate between atheist author Sam Harris and religious author and pastor Rick Warren, Harris claims that there is absolutely no proof for the existence of God. Warren responds by saying “there are clues to God. I talk to God every day. He talks to me.” Harris asks exactly what that means. Warren replies, “One of the great evidences of God is answered prayer.” This sounds nice and, to a Christian, is a very plausible reason for believing in God. But, does it really prove His existence? Could not have all those prayers that were answered be by mere probability and chance? Answered prayer may support the existence of God, but it by no means proves it completely.
If God truly does exist, wouldn’t human beings, being part of His creation, be able to see evidence for His existence? Absolutely, in fact, the evidence is explicit and concrete.
The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Romans, states that God can clearly be recognized by His creation.
“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and
divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so
that men are without excuse” Romans 1:20.
This is a claim that does not lack support. Although evolution is the most common belief system in the world of science today, in the past, many scientists, as they grew in knowledge through their studies, came to the conclusion that the universe had to have been created by a designer.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble, while working at Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, by measuring the redshifts of distant galaxies and their relative distances, found that they increased as a linear function of their distance. The only explanation for this observation is that the universe was expanding. Scientist’s concluded that if the universe is continually expanding, there must have been one small, single point in which the universe started to expand.
Not only did Hubble realize this, but Albert Einstein, in his theory of General Relativity found that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Surprised at the facts his equations were giving him, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant known as a "fudge factor" to the equations to avoid this problem. Once Einstein heard of Hubble’s discovery, he said that altering his equations was "the biggest blunder of his life."
What does this have to do with God being seen through nature? Much, much, indeed. Most people think of the Expansion Theory or the Big Bang theory as something that denies the existence of God. But, it actually supports it.
The Big Bang theory is not a causal theory but a theory of an effect that was caused by something else. Logically and scientifically, we know that it is impossible for something to come out of nothing. That erroneous theory, known as Spontaneous Generation, was disproven in the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur. Therefore, the Big Bang must have been caused by something else. If the Big Bang’s cause was caused by something else, then the action that caused the Big Bang’s cause must have a cause itself, and so on and so forth. There must have been an initial cause that had no cause for its existence, but was infinite in its nature. Not only is the existence of God clearly understood through cosmology, but biology expresses remarkable evidence for a designer as well.
In 1996, the Free Press published a book by biochemist and intelligent design advocate Michael Behe called “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.” In Behe’s book, the central thesis is that biological systems are "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level. Behe gives the following definition of irreducible complexity:
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 (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) 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. An irreducibly complex
biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)
According to Behe, if one small part of the structure and organization of the cell of an organism was taken out, the whole organism would become dysfunctional. The bacterial flagellum is an example of what Michael Behe describes as an irreducibly complex system. Behe describes the flagellum in this way:
The flagellum is a long, hairlike filament embedded in the cell membrane. The external filament consists of a single type of protein, called "flagellin." The flagellin filament is the paddle surface that contacts the liquid during swimming. At the end of the flagellin filament near the surface of the cell, there is a bulge in the thickness of the flagellum. It is here that the filament attaches to the rotor drive. The attachment material is comprised of something called "hook protein." The filament of a bacterial flagellum, unlike a cilium, contains no motor protein; if it is broken off, the filament just floats stiffly in the water. Therefore the motor that rotates the filament-propellor must be located somewhere else. Experiments have demonstrated that it is located at the base of the flagellum, where electron microscopy shows several ring structures occur. The rotary nature of the flagellum has clear, unavoidable consequences ... (pp. 70-72)
It is clear, just by the description Behe gives, that the bacterial flagellum is an
irreducibly complex figure. Every small part of the device is absolutely necessary in
order for the whole device to execute its purpose successfully. Could such an organic
device such as the bacterial flagellum have come into existence by chance? The
probability is impossible.
Although science and nature give a very reasonable explanation for the existence
of God, skeptics persist in arguing that, if there is a God, He is unjust due to the evil He allows or, God cannot exist because if He did, He would not allow all this evil. From a humanistic standpoint, this is a reasonable argument. But, let’s look at this logically.
If a person looks at the world and begins to assume that the societies of the world
are unjust and evil, on what basis can they make that judgment? Have they experienced a world that is just and righteous? Unless they’ve lived in some other world in the universe, according to their assumption, they haven’t. So what are they comparing this “unjust” and “evil” world to? After all, you cannot know what is unjust unless you first experience what is just. C.S. Lewis makes this argument in the following excerpt from his book “Mere Christianity":
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of “just” and “unjust?” … What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? … Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies…. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.
This logical argument contradicts the crux of the post-modern philosophy,
namely, the concept that everything, including truth, is relative and there are no
absolutes. This leads back to the opening paragraph. Is murder morally wrong? If we
answer yes, that is an absolute. If we answer no, most would consider us sick. If it is neither, then morality is relative and it is up to anyone to decide what they feel about murder.
Moral relativity destroys the structure of civilization. In fact, it makes civilized
living subjective, depending only on the majority of the civilization. If morality is
relative, then our laws are not necessarily just and principled, but dependent on the
majority’s subjective feelings. Therefore, murder, rape, and thievery aren’t necessarily wrong but just the majority’s decision of what is unlawful at that present time.
But, if morality is relative, then why are we so disgusted with acts such as rape,
pedophilia, and murder? Why is that when we here of child molesters and kidnappers
who torture innocent people in horrible ways we cringe in disgust? Is it because we are used to it being called unlawful by the majority in the world? Is that the only
reason? Could our adaptation to their subjective standards really cause such a
passionate hatred for such wicked things? Maybe, but the Bible begs to differ.
In his letter to the Romans, Paul talks about mankind’s feelings toward unlawful
things.
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.”
According to Paul, the Jews, God’s chosen people, had received the law of God and had been commanded to abide by it. But, the gentiles had not received that same law. So when they do the things of the law, it shows the requirements of that law written on their hearts. When a person hears of a wicked crime such as rape, they become disgusted; not because that’s just the way they were raised but because the law
that shows the sin in that act has been written on their hearts so that, in their hearts, they know the sinfulness of the act.
God is the highest standard of morality. There is no standard that He can be
compared to. Therefore, every law He sets is moral in its nature. It is clear that
the absoluteness of morality gives great evidence to the existence of God.
Cosmology, biology, and moral absoluteness are all solids concepts that give
strong evidence to the existence of God and weaken the arguments of the atheist. There
are many more arguments that prove His existence. In any case, it is clear that the
existence of God can be proven by something other than mere personal experience.
Adam Ryan received a B for this paper.