The Apologetics Advertisement for Christianity
By Nathaniel Ashcroft
Creation
John Burroughs writes in his essay The Divine Soil,
“One thing is inevitably linked with another, the higher forms with the lower forms, the butterfly with the grub, the flower with the root, the food we eat with the thought we think, the poem we write, or the picture we paint, with the processes of digestion and nutrition. How science has enlarged and ennobled and purified our conception of the universe; how it has cleaned out the evil spirits that have so long terrified mankind, and justified the verdict of the Creator: ‘and behold it was good.’ With its indestructibility of matter, its conservation of energy, its inviolability of cause and effect its unity of force and elements throughout sidereal space, it has prepared the way for a conception of man, his origin, his development, and in a measure his destiny, that at last makes him at home in the universe.”
(Burroughs 2)
The idea that existence can come from non-existence naturally, is false. The way our universe came into being, according to science, is that a dense, volatile ‘singularity’ containing the entirety of the mass for our universe exploded in a cosmic boom (Big Bang), which set our universe exploding outwards into motion. Here’s the catch: we have no clue how this singularity got there, and we don’t know how it was ‘set off’.
A singularity is created whenever the mass of an entity becomes so large that the force of gravity overcomes the normal force of the entity and infinitely compresses that mass into an indefinitely small area. In other words, matter gets crushed and compressed very small. Singularities are also contained within black holes. How is such a thing naturally set off? What could push against a force so powerful it collapses unimaginable amounts of matter into the point of a pencil? To not just overcome such force, but to send the mass within it careening outwards? Nothing could. A black hole contains a singularity as well, but the mass contained within that infinitely condensing point is likely far less than that of our whole universe, which was in the Big Bang singularity. And yet somehow it exploded! Think about the extreme chaos that would result from this explosion of mass, and then think about the incredible order of our universe. I see an intelligent creation.
Secular scientists assert that we got the existence of this singularity from non-existence, but this is scientifically impossible. The most probable answer, considering the design portrayed in our earth, is that this was an act of God, or the supernatural act of some sort of designer. There is never a recorded time of existence coming from non-existence ever happening ever. Think about it; could you even conceive of being(matter) coming from any sort of non-being(absence of matter) naturally? So if the universe has a beginning (it does), that beginning has to be supernatural. The law of conservation of mass states that “matter is neither created nor destroyed.” Why would we expect the only natural violation to that rule to be found at the beginning of our universe? What are the chances that the only matter that pops into existence happens to be our entire universe, along with its universal constants (fine-tuning) in play, packed into a small, dense region that would go on to accidentally create an orderly universe that is fine tuned for life? And the only other proposed natural violation to the law of conservation of mass is the beginning of life itself!
I don’t think these conclusions from secular scientists come about from an unbiased look at the data, but from the want to cling to scientific naturalism. Even if the singularity wasn’t really the start of all material being, it still had to be formed naturally some way from the materialist’s standpoint. Why would we expect something that continuously exhibits design to be random and to occur without any intervention of an intelligent mind? With what we observe in our world, design only comes from intelligence. All in all, it’s impossible to explain the start of our universe and the start of life in a natural, material way. I don’t point to design because I already believe in God; the design and beginning of our universe and life continues to point me to God. There’s a reason pretty much every single civilization up to this point in history has believed in the supernatural.
Intervention Points
After thousands of years of theistic civilizations, our scientific knowledge is the place in which we would expect to be able to refute those civilizations’ beliefs about theism. Instead, all of our findings support what we would expect if there is a creator God. We have only been able to explain aspects of how our universe works and the inner workings of its mechanisms, but we still have no natural answer for points that deal with its origin, or for phenomena in which their best explanation rests in God. They include; the beginning of the universe, the beginning of life, the fine tuning of the universe, apparent design in nature, objective moral law, consciousness, and the perception of beauty (I’m sure there are a few others, but these are the major ones). I’m going to refer to the category of points I have just mentioned and explained as ‘intervention points’, as they are the contentious locations of which would need to be proven to have a material and natural explanation to show our universe was not the result of an intelligent, omnipotent being. Of course, beauty, moral law, and consciousness do not deal with the origin of the universe or life, but we would expect them in the instance of a creator God. These are the phenomena that make the most sense in the case of a divine designer. The intervention points all lack a natural explanation, and they occur in all the places we would expect them to if God created the universe.
Pretend that all the scientific knowledge we have about the universe is wiped away, and as a civilization we are just beginning to research science. Let’s say those who were taking up this task were doing it with the intent to disprove theism. For them to accomplish that objective, they would need to search for natural explanations for the universal morality acknowledged by humans, for how this world actually came to be, for how life came to be, for the order present in creation, for why we seem to have a soul as seen through our consciousness, and for why our world seems to be intended to be beautiful (and more). The verdict on the origin of life would either throw shade on the possibility of the existence of God, or it would support the existence of God. I include this to show the reader that scientific discovery in general does not disprove God. An understandable universe is implied within the Bible (John 1) and points to design. It is also clear to see God at work by our observations of the earth.
Psalm 19:1-3,
“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them.”
Therefore, because science can explain aspects of how the universe works, the populace assumes that science has somehow disproved theism. When you see a car driving down the road, you can explain how it works, but just because you can say that the combustion of air and fuel propels it forward does not mean nobody created it. Likewise, our world also reveals design. When considering this universe we live in, we must quickly realize that it is both incredibly intricate, and incredibly complex. We can’t say the universe is unaffected and uncreated by an intelligence because we can explain aspects of its inner workings. We would expect to see this if God exists. Being able to explain aspects of how the universe works, such as the formation of stars, has no bearing on the possibility of a creator. We have a wealth of scientific knowledge, but not in the ways that have the potential to disprove theism.
A common point used by skeptics to refute these intervention points is to say: “Just because we don’t have an answer now doesn’t mean we won’t have an answer in five years!” I understand the logic behind this argument, but it really misses the mark. It would be different if we had explained some of these intervention points naturally, but we have no definitive nor convincing explanations or theories for any of them. Not a single one. It’s not that science has some findings that could begin to disprove a divine creator, it’s that it has none of them. All we have done is explained how the mechanisms of the car work, but we have not explained why or how the car is there. Since God and science must work together for God to exist, as He created it, we are not surprised to find this.
Beautiful Creation
I’ll briefly cover the argument from the existence of beauty. The theory for our perception of beauty from a natural standpoint, without an intelligent creator, is that we perceive beauty in places that we have needed to survive, or aided in our survival in the past. This theory seems to be implemented just to cling to an atheist worldview, as there is no evidence in support of this. I don’t mean to attack anyone who believes that theory; I am just trying to communicate what I have found to be most plausible and true. The theory is inconsistent with how our body/mind reacts to other things needed for survival, like food and water, and it’s inconsistent with our perception of beauty in locations that have not aided in survival at all, like sand dunes. There is no evidence that suggests that the perception of beauty should correspond with survival necessities at all! Instead we see beauty in the theoretical and the abstract like physics, chemistry, and mathematics, and also in people, art, flames, animals, music, flowers, etc. We perceive beauty in such an amazingly large number of places in creation for no natural reason; it makes more sense that an intelligent, omnipotent being created it to be beautiful and allowed us to perceive it as such. I can make this conclusion because the intelligent minds of this earth (humans) design things to be beautiful, and since beauty has such a large imprint on our world without a rational naturalistic reason why, it seems intelligence is behind it.
We are drawn to beauty as an insect is drawn to light; we seek it, we abide in it, and we appreciate it. We are drawn to beauty and we perceive beauty because a designer intended for us to see it that way. This is, of course, not a compelling argument for theism to the average atheist or agnostic (or maybe I’m just inadequate at articulating it), but in light of all the evidence for theism, the existence of beauty slots perfectly into that belief set. It makes perfect sense as to why we experience and cherish beauty when we consider it along with a designer. It does not make sense as to why we experience and cherish beauty when we consider it along with the absence of a designer. Therefore, the more probable answer to the problem is the existence of a designer.
Irreducible Complexity
‘Irreducible complexity’, a term coined by Michael Behe, refers to certain systems within nature that cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution. This means that certain biological systems are complex in their simplest discernible form. Darwin’s theory (Yes, it is still a theory, meaning it has not been proven) assumes that the building blocks of human existence are as simple as simple gets, and over billions and billions of years, through natural selection, they become remarkably complex. Natural selection is organisms fighting to survive, where they slowly adapt to survive more effectively, and with enough time, the end products of this chain are organisms that are very good at surviving.
A problem arises when we observe certain complex systems that cannot be explained naturally, as they require every aspect of their makeup to function correctly. This means that the organisms we observe today did not all come from a single, simple source. They are irreducibly complex, as laid out by Dr. Behe. This would mean they had to be created, because an intelligence of some kind is required to create something that exhibits design. Certain processes used by these organisms cannot be reduced to anything simpler, therefore they could not have originated from a single, simple source, like Darwinian’s theory states. From an evolutionary standpoint, everything must occur naturally, without God, or an intelligent mind interfering.
Many secular scientists believe that humans must have descended from a common ancestor, which was completely simple. This wouldn’t really have any evidence against a creator if proved true, though, as God can create in any way He chooses. The slow buildup of mechanisms to defend against death and to improve the modes by which the animal survives would then be the reason behind the seeming design of those organisms’ anatomy. A problem arises for that view, however, whenever we observe systems in nature that seem to have always been complex.
An example of an irreducibly complex system (and the most common example) is the bacterial flagella. It is one example among many. This is a legitimate rotary motor that bacteria use to move about their environment. It consists of 40 parts, all of which are needed for the motor to work as intended. If you take one part away, the motor no longer functions. If anyone denies that nature contains irreducibly complex systems, they must prove that, before the bacteria had this functioning 40-part motor, each of the 39 parts before the 40th part was added by its natural evolution process must have a function for the survivability of the organism. So, the scientist must demonstrate that, when the bacterial flagella did not have its 40th part, it still performed a function needed for survival with only 39 parts. The atheist must also then demonstrate that, when the bacterial flagella lacked its 39th and 40th parts, it still performed a function needed for survival with only 38 parts. This would then continue, all the way to 1.
It would be far different if we had evidence of bacteria that still used the function of the 39 parts of the bacterial flagella without the 40th, and also evidence of bacteria who still had a specific use for the function of the bacterial flagella with a significantly lower amount of parts, let’s say 10. That way we can trace its evolutionary path backwards and see how it could have occurred naturally. Of course, we don’t have any evidence of previous evolutionary stages of the bacterial flagella. Therefore, the bacterial flagella was created by an intelligent mind, because it exhibits design in its simplest form.
There have been various arguments presented against irreducible complexity, but the main principle remains the same: certain biological systems are remarkably complex, and there has been no viable Darwinian pathway to show that they could have come about naturally. Similar complex systems are present in nature, but not as a precursor to the bacterial flagella. Now, even if irreducible complexity is false, which very well could be, macro evolution does not contradict the Bible or the idea of a divine creator.
To have a running car, you need to have a motor that was assembled with many parts that all work together and are essential to the use of the vehicle. The motor does not work if it lacks spark plugs, a head gasket, an oil pan, a fuel pump, etc. A motor is irreducibly complex, and absolutely needs all of its parts to run, and requires an intelligence to design it. It could not come about naturally and is complex in its simplest form.
Here are two basic syllogisms for an intelligent creator:
Syllogism one:
“Something now is.
Something cannot come from nothing.
Therefore, something always was.” (Curtis and Kail 25)
Syllogism two:
“Something conscious now exists.
Something conscious cannot come from what is non-conscious.
Therefore, something conscious always was” (Curtis and Kail 25)
Think back to that singularity I told you about. Recall that it was extremely dense and volatile, and that it exploded outward, sending our universe careening into existence. Because of the chaos of this explosion, it would also be assumed that the universe that originated from that singularity could have come into existence under a wide range of parameters while still allowing for life, like different values for the gravitational constant, cosmological constant, weak and strong nuclear force, and electromagnetic force. We don’t see that at all, in fact. So get ready to hear about the fine tuning of the universe.
God Cooked with Fine Tuning
I’ll throw in one last point on creation: fine tuning. Fine tuning is the idea that the universe is balanced on a knife’s edge, and if the fundamental forces at work were even slightly different, the universe is either not suitable for life, or it doesn’t exist at all.
Dr. Michael Strauss writes,
“I liken the finely-tuned universe to a panel that controls the parameters of the universe with about 100 knobs that can be set to certain values. If you turn any knob just a little to the right or to the left the result is either a universe that is inhospitable to life or no universe at all.”
If our universe had a multitude of premises under which life could exist, then the natural chance that atheists claim produced our universe would be more plausible. Instead, we find that our universe is only possible if certain universally constant forces are set in an extremely specific manner. We find no basis for these universal constants, no reason that they exist. The most likely explanation for this phenomenon is that an intelligent creator set these into place. The fine tuning of the universe screams ‘creator’. It’s too exact, every aspect balanced on the point of a pin, and any value tweaked in the slightest does not allow for life. We can’t explain why these forces exist in the first place, nor why their values are identical no matter where you are in our universe, let alone why they are fine tuned for life.
In Astrophysics for People in a Hurry Dr. Tyson states,
“The universality of physical laws tells us that if we land on another planet with a thriving alien civilization, they will be running on the same laws that we have discovered and tested here on Earth.”
(Tyson 38)
Here he is writing about physical forces that are necessary for our universe that are identical everywhere in the cosmos (speed of light, gravitational constant, planck’s constant, etc.). He demonstrates that they are the same everywhere in our universe.
The main five forces that I will focus on are: the gravitational constant, weak nuclear force constant, strong nuclear force constant, electromagnetic force constant, and the cosmological constant.
For the gravitational constant:
J. Warner Wallace writes in his blog, Fine-Tuning of the Force Strengths to Permit Life,
“If gravity is weaker by 1 in 10^36, stars are unstable to degeneracy pressure (for small stars) or unstable to radiative pressure just expelling huge chunks of the star (for larger stars). If gravity is stronger by 1 in 10^40, the universe is dominated by black holes not stars. If gravity is weaker by 1 in 10^30, the largest planet that would avoid crushing effects of gravity on any large-brained creatures would have a radius of about 50 meters – which is not a good candidate for an ecosystem and the development/sustenance of intelligent life.”
Jay W. Richards gives a great list and explanation of fine-tuning parameters in his article, List of Fine-Tuning Parameters. This is not a direct quote.
If the weak nuclear force is stronger or weaker, stars that are needed for life could not form.
If the strong nuclear force is stronger or weaker, chemicals that are needed for life are no longer stable, namely hydrogen.
If the electromagnetic force is stronger or weaker, chemicals cannot form stable bonds.
If the cosmological constant was stronger or weaker by “1 part in 10^120”, our universe either collapses in on itself or flies apart.
Richards then goes on to list 17 more parameters that are fine-tuned for life.
In Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s book, Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, he states:
“Without the billion-and-one to a billion imbalance between matter and antimatter, all mass in the universe would have self-annihilated, leaving a cosmos made of photons and nothing else.”
(Tyson 26)
Antimatter is matter with flipped poles, so for the antimatter, electrons are positive and photons are negative. When antimatter and matter meet, they cancel out. What Dr. Tyson is saying is that the ratio of matter and antimatter was ever so slightly in favor of matter at the beginning of our universe, and without that slight imbalance all that exists are photons.
Dr. Tyson provides even more evidence for fine-tuning later, saying,
“In particular, a quantity known as the fine-structure constant, which controls the basic fingerprinting for every element, must have remained unchanged for billions of years.”
(Tyson 37)
This quantity is necessary for the structure of our universe and also “quantifies the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles.” Without this constant, elements essential for life such as carbon can not form.
He also states:
“Had Earth been much closer to the Sun, the oceans would have evaporated. Had Earth been much farther away, the oceans would have frozen. In either case, life as we know it would not have evolved. Within the chemically rich liquid oceans, by a mechanism yet to be discovered, organic molecules transitioned to self-replicating life.”
(Tyson 30)
So, from this singularity that was mysteriously in existence and arbitrarily set off, we barely got a universe, and in this universe we barely have the necessary requirements for life and barely got oceans that were almost evaporated or frozen, and in these oceans, life originated “by a mechanism yet to be discovered…” Need I say more? Now do you more clearly see the importance of the intervention points? Secular scientists don’t need to explain how the universe functions to disprove God (chemical reactions or something of the like), they need to explain this mechanism of the beginning of organic molecules. And fine-tuning. And the empirical design in nature. And the origin of the universe. And consciousness. And morality. And more. And they have yet to find evidence that a single one occurred naturally.
Have you heard the gospel? If not, click here.
View next week’s section to learn about Pascal’s Wager.
Works Cited
Burroughs, John. The Divine Soil. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1914.
Cooper, Bruce. “An Introduction to the Anthropic Principle and Fine Tuning: Dr Michael G Strauss.” REASONED CASES FOR CHRIST, 18 Nov. 2017, accessed 25 Nov. 2025, An Introduction to the Anthropic Principle and Fine Tuning | Dr Michael G Strauss – REASONED CASES FOR CHRIST
Curtis, Byron G. and Kail, Zachary. “Syllabus for BIB112.” Old Testament Survey, Geneva College, revised Fall 2025. Lecture Notes.
Tyson, Neil. Astrophysics for People in a Hurry. W.W. Norton & Company, 2017.
Wallace, J. Warner. “Fine-Tuning of the Force Strengths to Permit Life.” Cross Examined, 3 August 2019, accessed 28 Nov. 2025, https://crossexamined.org/fine-tuning-force-strengths-permit-life/
Richards, Jay. “List of Fine-Tuning Parameters.” Intelligent Design, 14 Jan. 2015, accessed 28 Nov. 2025, List of Fine-Tuning Parameters | Intelligent Design