Note from John Oakes:

This is a college lever paper submitted by a user of the web site.  It is not
at an extremely scholarly level, but I am proud of Johans for doing an excellent
job of defending theism in view of scientific knowledge.  I hope you enjoy his
paper.

J. O.

Johans Changsek

Alice Griffin

English-1A

4 December 2006

Is Anyone at Home?

?In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,? begins Genesis, the
first book of the Bible, ?And God said, ?Let there be light,? and there was
light.  God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.  Go
d called the light ?day,? and the darkness he called ?night.?  And there was evening,
and there was morning ? the first day? (Gen. 1:1, 3-5).  When many people read or
hear these words, they may think, ?Huh, nice fairy tale,? but is that the case? 
?Has science explained away any need for a God?  Has modern science ?dissolved Christianity
in a vat of nitric acid? (Feuerbach)?  Is the Theory of Evolution the answer to why life exists
in the universe?  Certain people, from the age of Enlightenment to the present have vehemently
denied the claims of faith and of the Bible.  So, logically, the ultimate question
would be: is there a Creator?

When people usually think of science and faith, they think that they are at
polar opposites.  This perception was shown in comedic fashion on an episode of The Simps
on?s, where a well-known town judge produces a sentencing regarding the point.  ?As for
the case of science versus religion,? bellowed the judge, after a majority of
the courtroom had left the building, ?I am issuing a restraining order.  Science must
keep five-hundred feet away from religion at all times.?  This was my way of thinking,
as well.  While reading certain books, however, I found that this was not the case. 
I was dead wrong.  In fact, in this struggle of believers and atheists, science has
helped to verify the viewpoint of people of faith.

Here is a bit of personal background information.  My position on this issue is that there
is a Creator-God.  Much of it had to do with my upbringing.  I grew up learning that there was a God,
and that God was good.  When I reached high school science, however, this thing called
?evolution? seemed to be trying to give God a hard time.  A lot of the information
did make sense, and I became convinced that this was the way that life began.  It
?also made me very confused because that information ?competed? with the information
that I had gathered about God.  I do not suggest anyone do what I did in simply
believing what one person says, but that is what I did in my early years, and
I continue to do occasionally.  Later, after becoming a Christian, I decided to believe everything
that was in the Bible ? even the stuff that did not make sense at the time.  One
?in particular was the story of creation, but I reasoned that if I was dealing
with an all powerful God, then He could create the universe in a flash.  While that
was my way of thinking, others wanted more solid evidence based on solid facts.

Atheists and agnostics have long been denying the existence of God or gods based
on ?scientific? evidence.  Ever since (or even before) Charles Darwin?s famous book, The Origi
n of Species, people have questioned the very existence of such a Being.  The proofs that
atheists have to defend their views are the standard evolutionary images seen
in classrooms across the country.  First, and the most convincing, is the Stanley Miller
Experiment.  To quote from Microsoft Encarta,

?American chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested part of Oparin and
Haldane?s hypothesis in the early 1950s by simulating conditions of the early
Earth. In what has become known as the Miller-Urey experiment, the two scientists
connected two flasks with a loop of glass tubing that allowed the gases to pass
between the flasks. They filled the upper flask with methane, ammonia, and hydrogen?
components thought to have been in the early atmosphere. They filled the lower
flask with water. The scientists then applied electric sparks?the equivalent of lightning
on the early Earth?to the gas mixture. After less than a day, the water in the
lower flask contained a variety of amino acids and other organic molecules?the
building blocks of life. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that it was possible
to form organic materials from inorganic components on the early Earth.?

The second is Darwin?s ?Tree of Life,? where he depicts an evolutionary family
tree from the early ancestors toward the bottom and the more modern species
on top.  The third is Ernst Haeckel?s drawing of embryos.  Haeckel was a zoologist that
drew pictures of embryos of different species at early stages showing to be
very similar, if not identical to each other.  The fourth image is the ?missing link,?
sometimes referred to as the archaeopteryx.  The fossil skeleton featured ?the skeleton of
a dinosaur and the feathers of a bird. Many paleontologists consider this creature
an intermediate step in the evolution of reptilian dinosaurs into modern birds? (Encarta). 
This is not an all-inclusive list, but these are the basic images that atheists
put their faith in.

There was an atheist that took these mental pictures from school to blast away
the theory of a Creator from his mind.  He thought that people of faith, particularly
Christians, were dim-witted, irrational fools who could not contemporize with
the rest of society.  They were stuck in the Middle Ages with their outdated traditions.  Howe
ver, that theory was threatened when his intelligent, rational wife studied
the Bible and became a Christian.  He then decided to reinvestigate the evidence more
closely.  This man?s name was Lee Strobel, a journalist of the Chicago Tribune.  In his book, Th
e Case for a Creator, his journey begins with an interview with atheist scientist Dr.
Jonathan Wells.  He told Strobel that as he studied each of the common images used
for proof of evolution in schools, he found that they were horribly inaccurate.  First
, Wells disassembled the Miller Experiment.  He began by saying that ?the consensus is
that the atmosphere was not at all like the one Miller used? (Strobel).  Experts as late as
1995 dismiss the original experiment because ?the early atmosphere looked nothing
like the Miller-Urey simulation? (Cohen).  To be honest, in a more accurate atmosphere consisting
of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor, the experiment does produce ?organic?
molecules.  However, the molecules produced are formaldehyde and cyanide, two toxic substances
that would not necessarily be thought of with a life-bringing connotation.  As if that was
not enough, Dr. Wells would soon point out if formaldehyde and cyanide are mixed
together, the result is embalming fluid.  Another atheist-turned-Christian by the
name of Dr. John Oakes, a professor of chemistry and physics at MarianColle
gein Wisconsin, also had something to say about the subject of the Miller experiment.  H
e said,

?Amino acids are very stable molecules
over the short run.  It could also have been
predicted that if Urey and Miller continued to add the spark and heat, the amino
acids concentration would have eventually been greatly diminished, leaving behind
a polymerized mess that organic chemists affectionately call ?tar? in the bottom
of the flask.  Although it was nice experiment, this was not great discovery at all,
because it led to results that any organic chemist would have predicted beforehand?
there is a logical impossibility built into this supposed formation of the first
cell by accident.  In living things, the formation of DNA molecules in the first place
requires the existence of DNA molecules?Now that is amazing!  The atheist would claim
that DNA molecule A, required to synthesize enzyme B, was spontaneously formed
by a chemical accident.  The problem with this is that enzyme molecule B might be one
of the proteins required for DNA molecule A to be synthesized.  Both of the uniquely paired
molecules would have to be created simultaneously by accident, even though both
are required to synthesize their partner.  That would be an unbelievable coincidence? (Oakes).

Moving on to Darwin?s tree of life, Dr. Wells said that it has been picked up
and turned upside down by the discovery of what is known as the ?Cambrian explosion.? 
?It was a geological period that scientists think began about 540 million years
ago.  Dr. Wells states,

?There were some jellyfish, sponges, and worms prior to the Cambrian?Then at
the beginning of the Cambrian ? boom! ? all of sudden, we see representatives
of the arthropods, modern representatives of which are insects, crabs, and the
like; echinoderms, which include modern starfish and sea urchins; chordates,
which include modern vertebrates; and so forth.  Mammals came later, but the chordates
? the major group to which they belong ? were right there at the beginning of
the Cambrian.  This is absolutely contrary to Darwin?s Tree of Life? (Strobel).

The last two supports have to do with fraud.  Haeckel?s embryo drawings appear to
be identical because they are identical.  Ernst Haeckel was so convinced in his own theory
that ?the similarities in the early stages were faked? (Strobel).  Consequently, his drawings
have been dismissed since he ?over exaggerated? his images to establish credibility
for evolution.  The archaeopteryx has been touted as being the missing link, since supposedly,
it is a half-bird, half-reptile hybrid.  Aside from structural differences in it?s
build, a paleontologist from the Universityof Kansassaid that it is not an ancestor
of any modern birds, but perhaps an extinct group of birds (Martin).  As if that was
not bad enough, the cousin to the archaeopteryx, called archaeoraptor, was purchased
in 1999, and it had the tail of a dinosaur and the forelimbs of a bird.  However
, it was proven that this ?find? was a fake.  Someone actually glued a dinosaur tail
to a primitive bird, creating it to resemble what eager scientists were looking
for.  To quote ornithologist Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary biologist at the Un
iversityof North Carolina:

?Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg.  There are scores of fake fossils out
there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field.  When you go to fossil
shows, it?s difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not.  I hav
e heard there is a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province,
near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were
found? (Svitil).

One subject that was not mentioned was the theory that humans have evolved out
of apes.  There is no substantial evidence to support this theory.  Quite possibly the most
famous archaeological find that tries to support this theory is the finding
of ?Lucy,? found in 1976.   This is weak evidence as ?she? is missing a skull, the
most important piece.  Since then, many other such fossils have been found, but usually
they are a part of a jaw, or a few teeth (Oakes).  Dr. Wells said on this subject, ?Of
course this lack of fossil evidence also makes it virtually impossible to reconstruct
supposed relationships between ancestors and descendents.  One anthropologist likened the
task to trying to reconstruct the plot of War and Peace by using just thirteen random
pages from the book.?  So, the myths of evolution have pretty much been debunked.  Biologi
st Tim Berra once stated that if someone takes a 1953 and 1954 Corvette side
by side and compares them and then a 1954 and 1955 Corvette and compares them,
then it is proof of descent with modification, just like evolution.  People corrected
him by pointing out that there had to be intelligent designer (like an engineer)
involved in the process, and not just nature taking it?s course through rust,
wind, water, and gravity turning the current model into it?s next successor.  I agree
with what Dr. Wells said at the end of his interview with Mr. Strobel.  He said, ?Darwinism
is merely materialistic philosophy masquerading as science, and people are recognizing
it for what it is.?

Clearly, the atheistic view of the ?Steady State Theory? would be highly improbable,
to say the least.  Now, what are the reasons for faith?  Ironically, the answer to that
is science.  They are far from being enemies.  One person has said, ?In their search for truth,
science and faith are intellectual cousins under the skin? (Polkinghorne).  The author would point
possibly to something called the ?Big Bang Theory.?  This has been known as a piece
of controversy.  Actually, it is not an atheistic belief.  Creation science generally teaches that
God created everything in six twenty-four-hour periods and that the earth is
only about 7,500 years old.  From the evidence found in earth strata and archaeology,
that is unsupported.  Could God have created everything in the universe all at once?  Of course
, and that is possible, but that is not what physical evidence shows.  To believe
in the Big Bang Theory, one would have to believe in evolution, as I do.  Some
?might be confused on this.  Was I not trying to disprove evolution?  I was trying to disprove
the Theory of Evolution.  Dr. Douglas Jacoby, yet another atheist who has come to faith
through science, clarifies this point.  He says that the Theory of Evolution claims,
?Life arose from nonlife, and all life forms today can be accounted for by evolutionary
change from simpler to more complex organisms.  Life began in a single cell and ?evolved?
to the present situation,? and the Fact of Evolution as, ?Life forms have developed
and diversified into new life forms.  This sort of limited evolution continues to
occur today? (Jacoby).  So, evolution can be just a big word for ?changes.?  Dr. Oakes explains concerning
the Big Bang Theory,

?According to the theoretical models of for the big bang, if the total energy
of the universe, created at the big bang, had been either bigger or smaller
than it was by just one part in 1 x 10120, life would never have formed??The precision?
of the creation of energy in the big bang ?is as if one could throw a dart across
the entire universe and hit a bulls-eye one millimeter in diameter on the other
side.
?  As Hawking has described, if there was even infinitesimally more energy in
the big bang, matter would have never condensed in a way which eventually allowed
for the formation of galaxies, stars and so forth.  On the other hand, if the energy
of the big bang had been infinitesimally smaller than it was, the entire universe
would have crashed in on itself in a relatively short time, never expanding
out to a sufficient size to allow for the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, and,
or course, life.?

Am I to believe that we are here because of some impossible ?accident??  Evolution being
left to it?s own devices, however, cannot account for life on earth ? by itself. 
Physics has a law known as entropy.  It is defined as a ?measure of disorder.?  It states that
the natural order of the universe goes from order to chaos, not the other way
around like atheists believe.  It is illogical to think that order comes from disorder,
the general comes from the specific, or the advanced comes from the basics.  Let an
eight-year-old have free reign of his own room and that theory will be proven.  An
other reason to believe that we were intelligently designed is our very DNA
code.  ?The six-feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body?s one hundred trillion
cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly
instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made? (Strobel).  Am I to believe
that DNA just grew on it?s own out of primitive earth proteins considering what
was learned from Dr. Oakes, Dr. Wells, and the law of entropy?  Richard Dawkins of
Oxfordsaid that ?the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like? (Dawkins).  Dr. Stephen Meyer
said, ?Information is the hallmark of mind.  And purely from the evidence of genetics
and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that?s far greater than our
own ? a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who?s amazingly
creative? (Strobel).

Still, many people are willing to believe, even against evidence, that there
is no Creator.  To this author, that is like saying that the Miriam-Webster?s Dictionary was a
result from an explosion at the print factory.  It is the same as saying a perfectly
functioning 747 appeared as the result of a hurricane passing through a junkyard.  T
o them, the possibility of a Creator is repugnant, so they leave that possibility
out of their research as a hypothesis.  Simply put, atheism is a philosophical religion.  ?The truth
claims that atheism simply cannot be proved,? said Oxford?s Alister McGrath,
?How do we know that there is no God?  The simple fact of the matter is that atheism
is a faith, which draws conclusions that go beyond the available evidence.?