1. The secular creation story of Big Bang, abiogenesis (life from non-life) and evolution was posited in order to show how the heavens and the earth and all the life in them could come about without God. It is a keystone to the secular agenda and therefore it should come as no surprise that it is the antithesis of the Christian creation story.
2. Their conclusion was decided for them before they even started to look:
A. Once the secular scientists decided that they would not bring God into science, and then began to look at origins, the only option left for them was naturalism.
B. Once you restrict yourself to naturalism, and you see a universe that is ever rapidly expanding, you are pretty much stuck with something like a Big Bang, and then you are definitely stuck with abiogenesis, and evolution. There is nowhere else to go.
3. The secular scientist did not come to his conclusions as a result of objectively studying the evidence. He put on the tinted glasses of naturalism, interpreted the evidence through those glasses, and then came to the only conclusions possible:
A. The secular scientists make the two huge assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. In other words, they believe that everything came about naturally without a God acting upon it, and the way things are today are the way they have always been. The world was never a paradise, there was never a fall, and never a worldwide flood.
B. If naturalism and uniformitarianism are true, then the secular creation story of abiogenesis, and evolution has to be true, and the Big Bang is most likely true. If they are false, then their conclusions are most likely way off.
4. Both sides look at the same evidence, which is the heavens and the Earth and all of the life in them. But they look at the evidence through different tinted glasses. One looks through the tinted glasses of naturalism, and the other through the tinted glasses of God (usually the Christian God) creating:
A.The one who is correct is not the one with the most evidence as they both have the same amount of evidence. The one who is correct is the one who has the right tint to their glasses through which they are seeing and interpreting the evidence.
5. Orthodox Christianity cannot be reconciled with macroevolution:
A. Christianity claims that there was no death until Adam sinned. Evolution says that there was death from the beginning of cellular life.
B. This would make God the author of death and would make a mockery of the incarnation through which Jesus came to defeat death which he said is the enemy of man.
C. Why would God seek to save us from that which he created? If his creation is good as he said, and the original creation included death, then death must be good. Therefore, we would have no need to be saved from it.
D. Evolution also posits that we have progressed from a lesser to a more developed state. Since a sinless state is greater than a sinful state, then the sinful state of man must have come first. So sin must also be inherently a part of God’s creation, and therefore good, so we have no need to be delivered from it.
6. Christianity claims that everything God created is good, and that it was man’s rebellion that brought sin and death into the world:
A. It also claims that man has fallen from a greater to a lesser state, and needs to be saved from this lesser state.
7. Christianity says that God created all of the vegetation before he created the sun:
A.The fathers of the church said that this was so the pagans (or for us today, the secular scientists) couldn’t credit the sun with creating life.
8. There is nothing in the world around us, which should lead us to think that everything came about by chance:
A. Everything we see around us, that we know where it came from, and has complexity, order, and usefulness, some manner of being has made it .
B. Everything from a bird’s nest, to a beehive, an ant hill, spider’s web, groundhog tunnel, even a beaver dam, has been put together by some manner of living being.
C. Therefore it follows that some manner of being, and in this case necessarily an intelligent being, has also made the universe which has much greater complexity, order, and usefulness than the individual things in it.
9. Scientists counter this by saying that the reason we don’t see things like the above happening naturally is because it takes too much time:
A. Scientists always hide behind time. Something either happened so long ago that nobody was there to see it, or it takes so long to happen that none of us living today will be there to see it.
B.Yet, the first step in the scientific method is observation.
C. If they didn’t observe everything coming about naturally, is their theory really a scientific one, or is it at best speculation based upon their presuppositions, or at worst wishful thinking?
9. From what we observe around us, which is what science is supposed to be based upon, life always comes from life. No one has ever seen life come from non-life:
A. Therefore it follows that the first material life came from some other life which couldn’t have been material otherwise it wouldn’t have been the first. So, what we are left with is the first material life came from an immaterial life. At least that’s what the evidence we have observed so far points to.
10. From all that we have observed around us, intelligence always comes from intelligence. We have never seen intelligence come from non-intelligence:
A. If we ask the question, where did the first intelligent material life come from, it couldn’t have come from another material, intelligent life or it wouldn’t be the first. So, the only alternative that we know of, is that It had to come from an intelligent immaterial life.
11. From all that we have seen in this life self-awareness always comes from self-awareness:
A. If we ask the question, where did the first self-aware material life come from, it could not have been another self-aware material life or it wouldn’t be the first. So, again, the only alternative that we know of is that it had to be a self-aware immaterial life.
12. If we put all of this together, our conclusion has to be that the first intelligent, self-aware, material life came from a self-aware, intelligent, immaterial life:
A.This is what the evidence points to at this point in time. If the evidence changes in the future, we can reevaluate our conclusions.
13. In both the creation and evolutionary models something has to be eternal because you can’t get something out of nothing:
A. For us it is God and for them it is energy.
14. In both cases, since no-one was present to see the beginning of the universe, it comes down to faith (really blind hope) for them, and God’s revelation for us. It is impossible to prove either one:
A. Either there is a God who created, or everything happened by chance.
B. We say God did it; they say stuff happens.
15. Finally, some may ask, how indeed do we bring God into science?
A. A scientist uses the scientific method to study the universe and all of the life in it and comes to the very reasonable conclusion that he doesn’t believe it could have happened on its own.
B. In doing so he has just brought God into science. Not any particular God, but God nonetheless.
