More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell
Authors: Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell
Tags: Religión, Christology, Christian Theology, Christian Life, Spiritual Growth, Spiritual & Religion, apologetics
Ads: Link
he is happy to do so.
Is Atheism More Scientific?
The confidence of the New Atheists stems from one central fact: they believe science is on their side. Sam Harris says, “Belief in the biblical God finds no support in our growing scientific understanding of the world.” 11 And according to Hitchens, the more science develops, the less room there is for God. 12 But is this the whole story? While the New Atheists would like us to believe that God can only be inferred from the “gaps” in our scientific knowledge, in reality, the scientific evidence for design has exploded in recent years. 13 In fact, one of the most influential atheists of the past five decades—Antony Flew—recently changed his mind about God for this very reason.
While other atheists may have been more recognizable, Flew’s impact was unparalleled. He delivered his famous lecture, “Theology and Falsification,” at the Socratic Club at Oxford, then chaired by C. S. Lewis. It eventually became the most widely reprinted philosophical article for five decades. His many books and lectures set the agenda for modern atheism.
----
What Do You Think?
In your view, is the scientific evidence in favor of God’s existence, against God’s existence, or neutral? On what do you base your opinion?
----
Then in 2004, Flew made a shocking announcement: God must exist. Flew now believes that the best explanation for the world is some sort of deity. Why did he change his mind? “The short answer,” writes Flew, “is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.” 14 The New Atheists are free to proclaim that science is on their side, but the evidence shows the contrary. Consider two recent scientific puzzles that remain unexplained by naturalistic science, but point strongly toward God.
The mystery of the origin of life
One of the most perplexing scientific problems today is the origin of life. The scientific community is unanimous that this is an unsolved mystery. Harvard chemist George Whitesides once remarked that the question of life’s origin is one of the big scientific questions that has yet to be solved. 15 Even Sam Harris admits that the origin of life is still a mystery. 16
The problem of the origin of life is fundamentally a problem of information.
With the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, scientists first understood that the organization and development of living creatures is orchestrated by genetic information. This is why, in a widely cited speech, Nobel laureate David Baltimore referred to modern biology as “a science of information.”
How much information is found in living things? According to Richard Dawkins, the information in the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is greater than an entire set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 17 Human DNA contains vastly more. Yet DNA does more than just store information. In combination with other cellular systems, it also processes information much like a computer. Hence Bill Gates likens DNA to a computer program, though far more advanced than any software humans have invented. 18
Atheists willingly confess that they have no clue how life first emerged. Dawkins recognizes the staggering improbability of the origin of life, but then concludes with an incredible solution: luck. Yes, luck. 19 Is this really the most reasonable explanation? Can information emerge from an unguided, irrational, material process?
----
What Do You Think?
Is luck a credible deduction for the origin of life? Apart from God, can you think of any other reasonable explanation?
----
The informational content of DNA was one of the primary reasons former atheist Antony Flew changed his mind about God. He concluded: “The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind.” 20 If a message with the complexity of the Encyclopaedia Britannica were to arrive from outer space, it would
Is Atheism More Scientific?
The confidence of the New Atheists stems from one central fact: they believe science is on their side. Sam Harris says, “Belief in the biblical God finds no support in our growing scientific understanding of the world.” 11 And according to Hitchens, the more science develops, the less room there is for God. 12 But is this the whole story? While the New Atheists would like us to believe that God can only be inferred from the “gaps” in our scientific knowledge, in reality, the scientific evidence for design has exploded in recent years. 13 In fact, one of the most influential atheists of the past five decades—Antony Flew—recently changed his mind about God for this very reason.
While other atheists may have been more recognizable, Flew’s impact was unparalleled. He delivered his famous lecture, “Theology and Falsification,” at the Socratic Club at Oxford, then chaired by C. S. Lewis. It eventually became the most widely reprinted philosophical article for five decades. His many books and lectures set the agenda for modern atheism.
----
What Do You Think?
In your view, is the scientific evidence in favor of God’s existence, against God’s existence, or neutral? On what do you base your opinion?
----
Then in 2004, Flew made a shocking announcement: God must exist. Flew now believes that the best explanation for the world is some sort of deity. Why did he change his mind? “The short answer,” writes Flew, “is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.” 14 The New Atheists are free to proclaim that science is on their side, but the evidence shows the contrary. Consider two recent scientific puzzles that remain unexplained by naturalistic science, but point strongly toward God.
The mystery of the origin of life
One of the most perplexing scientific problems today is the origin of life. The scientific community is unanimous that this is an unsolved mystery. Harvard chemist George Whitesides once remarked that the question of life’s origin is one of the big scientific questions that has yet to be solved. 15 Even Sam Harris admits that the origin of life is still a mystery. 16
The problem of the origin of life is fundamentally a problem of information.
With the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, scientists first understood that the organization and development of living creatures is orchestrated by genetic information. This is why, in a widely cited speech, Nobel laureate David Baltimore referred to modern biology as “a science of information.”
How much information is found in living things? According to Richard Dawkins, the information in the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is greater than an entire set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 17 Human DNA contains vastly more. Yet DNA does more than just store information. In combination with other cellular systems, it also processes information much like a computer. Hence Bill Gates likens DNA to a computer program, though far more advanced than any software humans have invented. 18
Atheists willingly confess that they have no clue how life first emerged. Dawkins recognizes the staggering improbability of the origin of life, but then concludes with an incredible solution: luck. Yes, luck. 19 Is this really the most reasonable explanation? Can information emerge from an unguided, irrational, material process?
----
What Do You Think?
Is luck a credible deduction for the origin of life? Apart from God, can you think of any other reasonable explanation?
----
The informational content of DNA was one of the primary reasons former atheist Antony Flew changed his mind about God. He concluded: “The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind.” 20 If a message with the complexity of the Encyclopaedia Britannica were to arrive from outer space, it would
Similar Books
