Category Archives: General

A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God

Posted on by

Transcendental Argument for GodHave you ever thought about what grounds the laws of logic and mathematics? We know that they work, but why?
The Christian apologist has a quick answer: because of God. They exist and are sustained by God. The Transcendental Argument (TAG) challenges the atheist to resolve this any other way. What besides God could possibly explain the existence of something fundamental like logic? (To see the Christian case for this argument, read the selection from my Cross Examined in an earlier post.)
This argument is of particular interest to me because I was introduced to it in a radio interview—not the best place for careful study and contemplation. (But more on that later.)
1. TAG is just a deist argument
First notice that TAG is a deist argument. If it convinced you, you’d be a deist, not a Christian. The apologist would be obliged to use different arguments to show that the deity was the Christian god, not some other god.
2. We don’t get physics from Christianity
Next, notice that we’ve never gotten physics from Christianity before. Why go to Christianity now to find the fundamental basis for physics? Yes, the Bible tells us how everything got started, but science gives the evidence to make clear that the Bible is wrong.
Nothing useful has ever come from resolving a science question by concluding that God did it. No honest seeker of the truth says, “I don’t know what causes this thing … so therefore I do know! It must’ve been God.”
3. Avoiding logical puzzles invalidates TAG
Many apologists dodge the “Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?” puzzle by saying that God can’t do anything illogical (here and here)—he can’t make an impossibly heavy rock, a square circle, a married bachelor, and so on. The question is ill-formed.
But by dodging this pitfall, they land in another as God’s actions become constrained by an external logic. If God is bound by logic, logic isn’t arbitrary. God can’t change it. He acts logically because he must, just like the rest of us.
This creates a Euthyphro-like dilemma: either God is bound by an external logic (and God answers to a fixed logic that he can’t change) or he’s not (and logic becomes arbitrary—it is what it is simply because God said so, and he could change it if he wanted to).
The apologist will try to propose a third option (again, as with Euthyphro): logic is simply a consequence of God’s nature. It’s neither external nor arbitrary. But this simply rephrases the problem. Is this nature changeable? Then logic is arbitrary. Is it fixed? Then God is again bound by logic.
Can God be the origin of logic if he’s bound by it?
4. Could God create logic and mathematics? Or is he bound by them?
Let’s think about God creating arithmetic for a moment. “Creation” seems to mean more than simply “bring into existence.” Were God’s hands tied in creating arithmetic, or did he have some creative control? For example, 2 + 2 = 4 in our universe. Could God have made 2 + 2 = 9? If so, prove it. And if not, God was obliged to make arithmetic the way it is and unable to create any other kind. Here again, he answered to an external reality.
5. Consequences of a godless universe
But let’s assume the apologist’s argument and see what happens. God created logic, and logic is the way it is because God made it so. If God’s role here is important, a godless universe must be dramatically different. A godless universe could then have no logic or different logical rules.
In our universe, X can’t be the same thing as not-X (the Law of Identity). Something can’t simultaneously be a rock and not-a-rock. The apologist’s argument tells us that logic is up for grabs. In a godless universe, something might be a rock and not-a-rock. But this is an incredible claim that needs justification. TAG gives none.
Continue with part 2.

Can God make a rock so heavy
that hitting His head with it
would explain the change in personality He underwent
between the Old Testament and the New Testament?
— commenter GubbaBumpkin

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Excerpt From My New Book, “A Modern Christmas Carol”

Posted on by

As an early Christmas present, here’s an extended excerpt—the entire first chapter—from my new book. Enjoy!
Reverend Nathan Thorpe strode through the door of his studio’s makeup room. Above the door was the logo of Hundredfold Ministry, overflowing baskets of yellow wheat. Or perhaps gold coins—the interpretation was left to the observer.
“I’m late—sorry,” he said as he took the middle chair. His wife Janice had held him up. She was going at it again at breakfast. How many times must a man apologize?
“I’ll get you done in time,” said Mary, the makeup artist. She shook out a starched barber cape and draped it over his shoulders. “Any special plans for Christmas Eve?”
Nathan scanned the schedule for the day’s broadcast. “It’ll be quiet for us this year.” With luck, he and Janice would entertain themselves separately that evening.
“Nathan?” It was Sophia Becker, his secretary. He hadn’t noticed her when he walked in. Competent though unassuming, she tended to blend in. “Could we talk about some philanthropic ideas?”
He looked at his watch.
“You told me to meet you this morning,” she said.
He had little interest in this topic, though she was right that he had promised. He granted permission with a wave.
“I checked on some charities like you asked.” She handed him a sheet. “These are the most reputable ones that work in East Africa.”
Nathan glanced at the list. “If we spend money, it must have a return.”
“This would be good to do.”
“We’ve been over this—this is a business. ‘Good’ must mean ‘good for business.’ We already give money and brag about that. There’s just no value in giving a higher fraction.” They gave away eight percent of gross revenue, which wasn’t bad compared to other television ministries. It wasn’t like anyone could see their financials.
“But we’re a ministry,” she said.
“Right—not a soup kitchen. Spending money is an investment, and an investment needs a return—wider satellite footprint, more products in the store, new programming for a broader audience, that sort of thing. We already have Sudan Christian Relief in that part of the world. We showcased them two months ago.”
“They only get twenty percent of what we raise for them, and half of that goes to missionaries.”
“Yes, and we have expenses.” Nathan considered for a moment challenging her to find something to cut, but she had never seen the ministry’s balance sheet or P&L, and even the board saw only a sanitized budget. He wasn’t about to give her something to critique.
She opened her mouth to speak when Malcolm Canon walked in and leaned against the sink in front of Nathan. Malcolm was Nathan’s speech writer. “We should talk about the lineup next week,” Malcolm said.
Nathan had realized since his earliest days on stage that he was in the entertainment business, and crafting a sermon that crackled with energy was demanding work. Malcolm had been a celebrity ghostwriter, and he was very good. With Malcolm behind him, Nathan could consistently discourage the audience at one point, show the church as the solution at another, and finally bring them to their feet before the Ask.
“I want something on tithing,” Nathan said to Malcolm. “Let’s make it an undercurrent for the next couple of weeks.”
“Could be a third rail.”
“I don’t want to hit it hard,” Nathan said. “Show me reluctant.”
“Maybe someone wrote in for advice on how donating should be done.”
“Good—say that I wouldn’t bring it up except that someone asked. A letter on paper would make a good prop. And emphasize that tithing doesn’t mean giving, it means giving ten percent.”
As Malcolm made notes, Sophia jumped back in. “I’m just thinking that we might be able to give more.”
Nathan sighed. “You said it yourself: we’re a ministry. If people want to give just humanitarian aid, they can go to CARE or Oxfam.”
Nathan thought for a moment about the Rainy Day Fund, the euphemistically named bin that held what in a corporation would be called “profits”—170 million dollars so far, tax free and hidden from judgmental eyes, and growing at a rate of 14 million dollars per year. Only he and the accountant saw these figures. It was all legal, not that they had to worry about an audit.
Sophia hesitated and said, “ ‘Whatever you have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done unto me.’ ”
Nathan turned to face her for the first time that morning. “Don’t wander into a biblical debate with me. ‘I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.’ ”
She took half a step back and looked down.
“Look,” he said, “you’re just going to have to trust me with the business decisions.”
“Yes, you’re right,” she said. “Thank you for considering it.”
Nathan turned back to Malcolm, “We haven’t hit homosexuality lately. That always connects with the audience.”
“ ‘Thou shalt not be gay’ is an easy commandment for most people to follow.”
“But here’s the trick—we’ve got a lot of closeted gays in the audience. The donation demographics showed that we were too critical last time. What I want is for straights to feel that this is an easy win where they can feel superior, and for the gays to feel guilt without alienation. We become the solution to that guilt, we harness it. Okay?”
Mary was done and took off the barber cape.
Nathan said, “What have you got to tie this into current events?”
Malcolm tapped his pencil against his pad. “There was a story a few days back about a high school club for gay students. Some parents objected.”
“That’ll work. Put out a press release in response to the gay club. I’d like that in the queue today. After Christmas, the media will eat up fresh stories.”
Sophia said, “Nathan, it’s late. You have someone waiting to see you, and taping starts in less than thirty minutes.”
Continue →
Buy A Modern Christmas Carol

My New Book! “A Modern Christmas Carol”

Posted on by

Who needs ideas for Christmas?
In a thought-provoking retelling of the Dickens classic, A Modern Christmas Carol tells the story of a shrewdly successful televangelist who receives unexpected Christmas visitors: first, his long-dead partner, and then three ghostly guides.
Finally able to acknowledge the shallowness of his message and doubts he has long suppressed, he makes amends with far-reaching consequences.
Most readers will enjoy seeing a televangelist get his comeuppance, but this book is more than that. It explores faith and the evidence for Christianity, and it should provoke or intrigue any reader interested in the impact Christianity has on modern society. It will engage thoughtful readers who enjoyed the intellectual workout of books such as C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity or Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion.
The book is available on Amazon as a 115-page paperback ($5.39) and a Kindle ebook ($1.99).
What others are saying

“[A] masterful retelling … well done!”
— Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry magazine
and author of The Trouble with Christmas

“Consistently ingenious and beautifully written … thought-provoking!”
— Dr. Robert M. Price, The Bible Geek

“Clever and brilliantly told, I’ll even admit to tears at the end!
A Christmas story I’m happy to share.”
— Gretta Vosper, minister and author of With or Without God

“A clever little book, filled with insights,
that takes the conceptual framework of Dickens’s Christmas Carol
to new heights of rationality without sacrificing any of its compassion.”
— Paul Gabel, author of Inventing Jesus

Spread the word!
Would you enjoy seeing a televangelist get the Scrooge treatment? Do you share my interest in getting atheists and Christians talking about the reasons underlying Christianity? Then give a copy for Christmas (or give one to yourself) and tell your friends!
Email them about it, or send a tweet:

  • Click to tweet: WHAT war on Christmas? An atheist celebrates Dickens’ classic: “A Modern Christmas Carol” is $6 on Amazon: http://amzn.to/169Zbp3
  • Click to tweet: Want to see a televangelist get the Scrooge treatment? “A Modern Christmas Carol” is $6 on Amazon: http://amzn.to/169Zbp3
  • Click to tweet: Enjoy C.S. Lewis? Here’s another fictional exploration of arguments for Christianity: “A Modern Christmas Carol” http://amzn.to/169Zbp3
  • Click to tweet: Interested in the Christianity/atheism debate? “A Modern Christmas Carol” is $6 on Amazon: http://amzn.to/169Zbp3
  • Click to tweet: Ever wonder what an atheist church could look like? “A Modern Christmas Carol” is $6 on Amazon: http://amzn.to/169Zbp3

This blog is here because you’re here! Thanks for your help and participation.
.

The Christian Poses Tough Questions to the Atheist (3 of 3)

Posted on by

A Christian apologist has given ten questions so tough that atheists are unable to respond. (See my responses, part 1 and part 2.)
So far, the ferocious problems haven’t been hard to unravel. Perhaps the final questions will be more challenging.
8. Why Do Transcendent Moral Truths Exist?
“We have an intuitive sense of moral ‘oughtness’; we recognize that some things are right and some things are wrong, regardless of culture, time or location. We understand that it’s never morally ‘right’ to torture people for the mere ‘fun’ of it. … These moral vices and virtues are objective in the sense that they stand above (and apart from) all of us as humans; they are not simply creations of our liking. Instead, they are independent and transcendent.” Transcendent law requires a transcendent Law Giver.
I’ll use William Lane Craig’s definition of objective morality: “moral values that are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not.” I doubt Wallace would object.
Now, back to the question: Wallace asks why objective moral truths exist.
They don’t.
Take, for example, our response to an adult abusing a child. What could explain that moral revulsion? Wallace says that we tap into objective moral truths, but he doesn’t explain where they’re stored, how they got there, how we access them, or if we access them reliably. He confuses a universal response or a deeply held response (which it is) with an objective response (which it isn’t). A far more plausible explanation is the natural one: all humans share the same moral programming.
Wallace also raises the is/ought problem: how do you get an ought (a moral prescription) from an is (a fact of nature)? You can say, “When someone is injured, you ought to help,” but what grounds this demand?
His error is in imagining an objectively grounded ought. I’ve seen no evidence that such things exist, and Wallace provides none. An ordinary ought works just fine here. Our moral programming gives us this ought, and most other people, being of the same species, will share the opinion.
Another way of seeing the problem: if morals don’t come from what is—that is, reality—then where do they come from? Where could they come from? Don’t point to the supernatural before showing compelling evidence that it exists.
Finally, note how morals change with time. We are horrified at the slavery and genocide in the Old Testament, for example, and congratulate ourselves to the extent that we’ve erased them from Western culture. Objective morals that change over time aren’t particularly objective.
(I’ve responded more thoroughly to another of Wallace’s arguments for objective morality here.)
9. Why Do We Believe Human Life to be Precious?
We kill weeds and pests, and we eat livestock, but we’d never consider this for a fellow human. How do we justify this if we’re all just the results of evolution?
Are “it’s wrong to kill a human” or “it’s okay to kill a rat” objective moral statements? Nope. There is no difficulty if there is no objective moral truth to align with. We value our own species more than others because of our biological programming.
Wallace characterizes the naturalist position: “In the true scheme of things, we are no more important (nor any more precious) than the thousands of species that have come and gone before us. Biological life has no intrinsic value and the universe has no purpose.” I agree—life has no absolute value and the universe no absolute purpose. You think it’s otherwise? Show me some evidence.
Wallace also characterizes the naturalist position as saying that only the strong survive.
And here he’s wrong. This is the “nature, red in tooth and claw” caricature. It’s not the strongest that survive, as any high school student who’s studied evolution knows, but the fittest. The fittest for any particular evolutionary niche might be the best camouflaged or the best armored or the fastest. In the case of humans, cooperation and trust can make a stronger society which, in turn, helps protect the people in it. And we don’t see cooperation just in humans. Think of any social animal—wolves, monkeys, or bees, for example.
10. Why Does Pain, Evil, and Injustice Exist in Our World?
“People are capable of inflicting great evil on one another and natural disasters occur across the globe all the time. More importantly, no matter what we do as humans, we seem to be unable to stop evil from occurring.”
Correct. That’s not strong evidence for an omniscient, loving god.
“Atheists often point to the presence of evil as an evidence against the existence of an all-loving and all-powerful God, but all of us have to account for evil in the context of our worldview. Both sides of the argument have to explain the existence and injustice of evil, consider what role it plays in the history of the universe, and come to grips with why justice is often elusive.”
Wrong. The atheist has no Problem of Evil to resolve. That’s your problem.
The Problem of Evil wonders: how can a good god allow all the suffering that we see in the world? Wouldn’t he stop more of it—at least the gratuitous suffering? Wallace acknowledges this problem on the Christian side, but when you drop the god presupposition, this problem vanishes.
“Whatever worldview we adopt, it had better offer a cogent response to the young child who is dying of an incurable disease. Which worldview offers the most satisfying and reasonable explanation for the evil and injustice we see in our world?”
“Satisfying”?! Is that our goal? I thought we were trying to figure out which worldview is accurate. If Wallace wants to rank worldviews based on how happy a story they have to tell rather than how accurate they are, he can do that on his own. I have no interest in participating, but I doubt that Christianity is at the top of the list.
“Christian Theism offers an explanation that naturalism simply cannot offer.”
As does Pastafarianism. Do I care? I’ll focus on reality.
Summary
For each of his questions, Wallace has explained nothing. He has given us his theology, not evidence. His answers often distill down to nothing more than, “Science doesn’t have all the answers, therefore God.” He has brought a squirt gun to a gunfight.
Sure, science has unanswered questions. It always has. But it has a startling ability to find the answers. If we can look back and see how poorly “God did it” answered “What causes drought and earthquakes?” centuries ago, why continue to apply this discredited answer to the latest series of questions? (More here.)
By being unfalsifiable, “God did it” could explain anything. In so doing, it explains nothing. (More here.)
I’d love to see an apologist show some courage in their claims. Is the riddle of abiogenesis or human consciousness or the origin of the universe so intractable that God is the only possible answer? Will you rest your faith on that claim? Will you say that God must be the answer and, if science does eventually resolve it naturally, you’ll abandon your faith?
Of course they won’t. Unanswered questions aren’t the reason for their faith. So if they aren’t primary evidence pointing to Christianity for them, why should they be for the rest of us? When one of these questions becomes answered (and, given science’s track record, that’s a safe bet), they’ll abandon it and retreat to whatever new question catches their fancy.
Science boldly pushes into new territory and gives us new insights. Religion follows and says, “Oh yeah, I knew that.” Religion is the dog that walks under the ox and thinks that he is pulling the wagon.

The universe is a deadly place.
At every opportunity, it is trying to kill us.
— Neil deGrasse Tyson

Photo credit: StormchaserMike

The Christian Poses Tough Questions to the Atheist (2 of 3)

Posted on by

We’re exploring ten tough questions that supposedly provide strong evidence for the Christian claim. Read part 1 of my response here.
Keep in mind that even if these questions do show holes in the atheist position (I don’t think they do), this are just the Christian side of the issue. Once we respond to this attack, I have a broadside of my own to offer.
4. Why Does There Appear to Be Evidence of Intelligence in Biology?
“Most scientists are quick to agree that biological systems often ‘appear’ to be designed. There are many examples of biological ‘machines’ that appear to be irreducibly complex, a sure sign of design. … Perhaps the most important evidence suggesting the involvement of an intelligent agent is the presence of DNA and the guiding role that this DNA plays in the formation of biological systems.”
Appearances can be deceiving. ELIZA was computer program with which users could have a typed conversation, as if with an attentive friend. Originally written in 1966, it could be assigned as a homework problem today. It convincingly mimics intelligence, though it contains none. Perhaps we’re seeing an ELIZA effect when we look at DNA, imagining intelligence where there is none.
Is the marvelous complexity we see in the cell a clue to an omniscient designer? Or is this clumsy, non-optimal Rube Goldberg machine actually evidence for evolution? Biologists are satisfied that evolution explains it. Laymen have no grounds by which to reject the scientific consensus as the best provisional explanation we have.
The claim of irreducible complexity doesn’t convince biologists either. I’ve written more on that here.
As for DNA being strong evidence for intelligence, guess again. In fact, DNA alone demolishes this Argument from Design. DNA is a sloppy record of evolution, not the perfect blueprint of an omniscient designer.
The Christian might point out that for every instance of information, we find an intelligence behind it. That may be so, but for every instance of intelligently caused information, that intelligence is natural, not supernatural.
Given the long list of things we thought were supernatural but are actually natural (disease, earthquakes, and so on), you’d think that apologists would be more cautious. But no, once science resolves a puzzle, they’ll just retreat to another unanswered question to defend their God of the Gaps.
5. How Did Human Consciousness Come Into Being?
“[As evolution proceeds, naturalists must] imagine that spatially-arranged matter somehow organized itself to produce non-spatial, immaterial mental states. Naturalism has no reasonable explanation for how this might come to pass.”
Ah, but it does: emergent properties. Consider a water molecule. It doesn’t have the properties of wetness, fluidity, or surface tension, but once you get trillions of trillions of them, then these properties emerge.
Or take the human brain. Our brains have roughly 100 billion (that’s 1011) neurons. A single neuron doesn’t think 10–11 times as fast; it doesn’t think at all. Thinking is another emergent phenomenon. (I’ve written more on that here.)
If the point is that we have plenty to learn about consciousness, that’s certainly true. Again, science’s long list of unanswered questions does nothing to support the Christian claim.
Wallace also insists on the existence of the mind as something separate from the brain, but he gives no evidence of this dualism.
Remember the story of Phineas Gage, the man who had a steel rod shot through his head during a mining accident (more here)? Or consider an Alzheimer’s patient. As the physical brain is damaged or deteriorates, the mind is also damaged. The “mind” is simply what the brain does.
If Wallace thinks that the mind (or soul) is something separate or that consciousness is not the inevitable end result of a sufficiently large brain, he needs to show evidence.
6. Where Does Free Will Come From?
Wallace imagines various philosophical problems with free will and then solves them with God as the first mover. Of course, he doesn’t explain the new puzzles that the God hypothesis introduces—where God came from or why God has always existed or what laws of nature (if any) God breaks to do his miracles. This hypothesis teaches us nothing new. God becomes a synonym for “I don’t know.”
If God is the reason that we have free will, then Wallace is saying that a godless universe would have no free will. I patiently await evidence of this claim.
I have little interest in philosophical puzzles. In the apologetics context, they seem like nothing more than smoke screens. Let me know if there’s something I’ve missed.
7. Why Are Humans So Contradictory in Nature?
Humans can be altruistic and compassionate, but we can also be hateful and murderous. “Philosophical Naturalism struggles to explain how creatures capable of genocide and cruelty are also capable of compassion and sacrificial generosity.”
What’s puzzling? Humans have a large palette of personality traits and drives. They came from evolution, and we’re stuck with them, though we can do our best to adapt to society’s norms.
These drives, both “good” ones like patience and perseverance and “bad” ones like lust or envy, can be useful. The problem arises when any are used too much.
For example, generosity is a good trait, but you need to be a bit selfish so that you don’t damage your own life by giving away too much. Anger is a bad trait, but the focus and drive that it gives can be useful occasionally when righting a wrong.
Different conditions create a wide variety of norms (the Nazi prison guard is a classic example) that encourage actions inconceivable in modern society. We don’t need to handwave about Mankind’s fall to explain the good and bad we see in human actions.
The discussion concludes with part 3.

In dark ages people are best guided by religion,
as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide;
he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see.
When daylight comes, however,
it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.
— Heinrich Heine

Photo credit: Emily Jane Morgan

The Christian Poses Tough Questions to the Atheist

Posted on by

No one can demand a proof that God does (or doesn’t) exist, but where does the evidence point?
A number of apologists defend Christianity with the thinking of a courtroom lawyer or detective. One of these is J. Warner Wallace. In his essay “The Christian Worldview is the Best Explanation,” he gives ten tough questions to which he says Christianity has the better answer. Let’s take a look.
1. How Did the Universe Come Into Being?
Our universe had a beginning, but what caused it? Why is there something instead of nothing?
I don’t know what caused the universe. I don’t even know if asking about a cause (which implies an action through time) even makes sense before time. (And I say “I don’t know” simply because I’m parroting the consensus view of physics. If that changes, so will my opinion.)
But there’s nothing embarrassing about pointing out where we don’t know things. Science has plenty of unanswered questions, and highlighting them shows where work needs to be done. It’s not like we’ve ever learned anything new about nature through holy books or divine revelation.
That science doesn’t know something doesn’t mean that Christians do. They still must do the hard work of coming up with evidence for the claim “God did it.” Believing by faith won’t do.
Note also that quantum events may not have causes, and the Big Bang was a quantum event. There’s no reason to demand a Big Banger, some supernatural First Cause.
As for “Why is there something instead of nothing?” show us why nothing is the default—that nothing is what a godless universe would contain. In fact, physicist Lawrence Krauss argues the opposite: that nothing is unstable and would spontaneously produce something.
More could be said on this and the other questions here, but I’m keeping it short for space reasons. Apologies in advance when I shortchange one or both sides of the argument.
2. Why Does There Appear to Be Design (Fine Tuning) in the Universe?
The constants that govern our universe appear to be remarkably fine-tuned to allow life. What explains that if not a supernatural intelligence?
I’ve touched on the fine-tuning argument before. The quick answer to this question is the multiverse—an almost infinite number of other universes defined by different constants. Most of them might be sterile, but there are enough to make one or more life giving.
The Christian might imagine atheists lamenting how the appearance of deliberate fine tuning makes a deity unavoidable and then hitting on the crazy idea of bazillions of universes so that by sheer luck at least one of them will allow life. But that’s not how it happened. A multiverse is predicted by well-established physics—both string theory and inflation.
Note also that events aren’t unique in physics. There’s more than one photon, more than one electron, more than one star, more than one object influenced by gravity, and so on. Why imagine only one Big Bang?
Wallace says that explaining the appearance of design “is a problem for philosophical naturalists only because they are precluded from considering the possibility of a designer.” If someone is closed minded to the evidence, I agree that that’s a problem. However, I’m happy to follow the evidence where it leads. Science has explored supernatural claims and found many natural causes.
Wallace says, “The Christian worldview is founded on the existence and creative activity of a Master Designer, and for this reason, it does not have to struggle with the appearance of design.” Show us that this is grounded with evidence and it’ll be more than just an ancient myth. Until then, not so much.
3. How Did Life Originate?
“Philosophical naturalists are still unable to explain how life began, and more importantly, their work in this area simply reveals how difficult the problem is to explain. … This scientifically inexplicable event can be described as nothing short of miraculous; the Christian worldview explains how the long odds against the emergence of life were overcome.”
The Christian worldview explains nothing. Christians can show how their theology addresses the question, but this isn’t evidence.
The origin of life is called abiogenesis. Though science has lots of ideas, it doesn’t have a good theory. Nevertheless, science not having an answer gives nothing to the Christian side of the question.
Do Christians think that this or any of the scientific questions are fundamental parts of their argument? I doubt it. When science reaches a consensus on any puzzle—and science’s track record for finding answers to nature’s questions is remarkable—they’ll just drop that question and pick up something new and hope that no one notices the switch. Their argument then becomes “Science has unanswered questions; therefore God.”
Continue with part 2.

The universe is simply one of those things
that happens from time to time.
— physicist Edward P. Tryon

Photo credit: Wikimedia