There are many outspoken atheists in the world who argue that belief in God requires people to deny all scientific evidence. An example of this is seen in the words of evolutionary biologists, Richard Dawkins. In 1992, Dawkins presented a lecture at the International Science Festival in Edinburgh. In his speech, Dawkins stated that faith is simply the denial of scientific evidence. He said, “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence … Faith is not allowed to justify itself by argument.” Elsewhere Dawkins states that “… all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favours evolution.”
Is Dawkins correct? Is faith a great cop-out? Does all of the available scientific evidence support evolution? If the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, what do the laws of science show? Although this article will not be able to give an in-depth study of each field of science, it will provide enough information relating to the laws of science to show that Dawkins, and others, are not correct. Faith is not a cop-out. More than that, this article will show that scientific evidence points to evolution being false.
The worldview that Dawkins presents is that there is no God and that the universe is the result of evolution. Dawkins’s view of origins is a belief held by many and acts as an intellectual obstacle to the gospel. An article from UC Berkeley seems to bolster the claims made by Dawkins and others. The article claims that evidence supports evolution as being the cause of life in the universe:
Chemists from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Hawaii, Manoa, showed that conditions in space are capable of creating complex dipeptides—linked pairs of amino acids—that are essential building blocks shared by all living things. The discovery opens the door to the possibility that these molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or possibly meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins (polypeptides), enzymes and even more complex molecules, such as sugars, that are necessary for life.
Dawkins and other evolutionists have claimed that there is a “vast amount” of evidence in support of evolution. Does chemistry and other fields of science show that evolution is true? The UC Berkeley article cited above mentions that life on earth might be the result of molecules that were brought to earth by meteorites or a comet. However, this theory brings up a dilemma for the evolutionist: Where did those molecules come from? What about the matter that made up the comet or meteorites?
An even larger problem for evolutionists is how the earth or the universe came into existence in the first place to allow life to exist. In Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Walter Bradly describes the conditions of the Big Bang and how the formation of the universe is impossible through chance:
A fundamental boundary condition of the big bang that is critical is its initial velocity. If this velocity is too fast, the matter in the universe expands too quickly and never coalesces into planets, stars, and galaxies. If the initial velocity is too slow, the universe expands only for a short time and then quickly collapses under the influence of gravity.
Based on how precise initial velocity had to be, according to cosmological models, these initial velocity requirements “seem to overwhelm chance.” According to Andrew Boyd, Sir Isaac Newton noticed another problem. If the universe “was formed by gravity pulling together bits of matter spread throughout the universe, why would there be planets? Specifically, why wouldn’t all the matter get pulled into a single great mass? Further, why was the sun the one and only body in the solar system to give off heat and light?” Boyd also points out that Newton’s study of the planets and their motions “solidified his own personal belief in God.”
Besides the evidence for creation that has already been presented, another piece of evidence supporting creation is the laws of thermodynamics. Physics professor Dr. Don DeYoung points out that these two laws greatly influenced his belief in creation. He writes,
“My scientific belief in creation is largely based on two thermodynamic laws of nature. In fact, these are the two most basic laws in the entire science realm. The first law states that energy is conserved or constant at all times. Energy, in whichever of its many forms, absolutely can be neither created nor destroyed. This rule ensures a dependable and predictable universe, whether for stars or for human life.”
The first Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. All energy in the universe stays the same while changing from one type to another. For example, a log that is burning in a fire is simply changing from its solid state into smoke particles. However, the total mass and energy for the log after it has been burned is the same as it was before it was burned. DeYoung makes the following point that “energy conservation implies that the universe did not start up by itself. Energy decay further implies that this universe cannot last forever. Secular science has no satisfactory explanation for such laws of nature. These principles simply transcend natural science. Their origin is supernatural, which by definition does not require a long time to develop. The addition of long ages of time is an unnecessary and confusing complication.”
The first Law of Thermodynamics is significant in the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate. This law disproves the claims of the evolutionists that everything evolved from nothing and that the universe has always been in existence. This law shows that these two claims cannot possibly be true.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with entropy. This law states that overtime disorder will increase. The significance of this Law of Thermodynamics, is that it disproves the claims of evolution that life is a result of natural processes that have evolved over billions of years from simple organisms into complex organisms. This Law states that the opposite of what the evolutionists claim is true. We see this breakdown all around us. For example, if a 1977 Volkswagen bus is left out in a field for 1,000 years, it’s not going to undergo evolutionary processes to transform it from its current 1977 body style into a more complex body style with an upgraded engine. Instead, the scientific process that would transpire is called entropy. The Volkswagen bus would begin to rust and fall apart over time. This law is clearly observed all around us and agrees with the Biblical account that God created the heavens and the earth and that because of sin, the earth is experiencing disorder.
Regarding entropy and the second Law of Thermodynamics, Stephen Hawking, the famous Theoretical Physicist from England said in a lecture in 1996, that: “… If your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature.”
Stephen Hawking’s quote here is clear. The belief that the universe has always existed is absolutely false. Not only that, but to believe that simple organisms evolve into complex organisms completely contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Regarding these laws that govern the universe, the famous physicists Albert Einstein said
“We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different 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 being towards God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand those laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.”
It should be noted that Einstein did not believe in the God of the Christian Bible. However, it’s clear that Einstein saw evidence for a Creator because of the fine-tuning that he observed in the universe. In his book There Is a God, once-notorious-atheist Antony Flew addresses the laws of nature, writing,
The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and “tied together.” Einstein spoke of them as “reason incarnate.” The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.
Scientists from many different fields of science are being confronted with the evidence of a finely tuned universe. In God’s Undertaker, John Lennox addresses the remarkable complexities seen in physics and cosmology. Lennox writes, “The remarkable picture that is gradually emerging from modern physics and cosmology is one of a universe whose fundamental forces are amazingly, intricately, and delicately balanced or ‘fine-tuned’ in order for the universe to sustain life.” He continues, “Research has shown that many of the fundamental constants of nature, from the energy levels in the carbon atom to the rate at which the universe is expanding, have just the right values for life to exist.”
Elsewhere, Lennox offers an example of the fine-tuning seen in physics and cosmology: “It is argued that an alteration in the ratio of the expansion and contraction forces by as little as 1 part in 1055 at the Planck time (just 10-43seconds after the origin of the universe), would have led to either to rapid an expansion of the universe with no galaxies forming or too slow an expansion with consequent rapid collapse.”
Although claims are made that “all available evidence” supports evolution, this article has shown that when the evidence is analyzed belief in a creator is the most logical response to the evidence. Not only do the laws of Science not disprove God, they act as evidence to point to His existence. When analyzed, the evidence that evolutionists claim disproves the existence of God, actually acts as evidence to disprove the theory of evolution.
 Alister McGrath, Christianity: An Introduction. 2nd ed. (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2005) 102.
 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2008), 19.
 Walter Bradley, “The ‘Just So’ Universe: The Fine-Tuning of Constants and Conditions in the Cosmos,” in Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, ed. William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007), 168-69.
 Andy Boyd, “No. 3012: Newton, God, and Gravity,” University of Houston, July 2, 2015, https://uh.edu/engines/epi3012.htm.
 Boyd, “No. 3012: Newton, God, and Gravity.”
 Don B. DeYoung, “Physics,” in In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, ed. John F. Ashton, (Green Forest, AZ: Master Books, 2014), 342-43.
 John, Ashton. In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2014), 343.
 Stephen Hawking. “The Beginning of Time.” Accessed October 25, 2022. https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time
 Denis, Brian. Einstein: A Life (New York: J. Wiley, 1996), p. 186. Quoted in In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2014), 156.
 Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 96.
 John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2009), 70.
 Lennox, God’s Undertaker, 70.
 Lennox, God’s Undertaker, 71.
Published March 13, 2023