Sunday, March 27, 2016

Why Should We Believe Christ’s Resurrection (Evidences For Christ’s Resurrection)

            Easter is commercialized into eggs and bunny. Although the bunny and eggs are oft associated with pagan connotations such as Eastre (or Eostre), better evidences suggests the contrary. reports that German immigrants were the source of Easter bunny and the eggs were a depiction of Christ’s resurrection.1

            Significantly, if Christ did not resurrect, our faith is useless, says the Bible, “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” (1 Corinthians 15: 13-14, NIV).

            How could we be reasonably sure that Christ rose from the dead?

Historical Basis Affirming Christ’s Resurrection

            Mike Licona, associate professor in theology at Houston Baptist University, offers reasons as to why historians consider Christ’s resurrection as a credible historical event. Historians consider confirmations by independent sources, unsympathetic sources and eyewitnesses as objective and reasonable evidences for Christ’s resurrection: 2

            Confirmation by Independent Sources: The gospels and Paul’s letters are independent of each other, yet they affirm Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. The gospels and the Pauline letters were authored by different people from varied contexts.

            Since the gospels and the Pauline letters, being independent of each other, affirm Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, historians trust the authenticity of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Historians term this process of validating a historical account as the “Criterion of Multiple Attestation.”

            Confirmation by Unsympathetic Sources: Publius Cornelius Tacitus, historian of the Roman Empire, was not a friend of Christianity. In his work Annals (15.44), Tacitus referred to Christianity as an evil and a mischievous superstition. However, at the same time, he attested to Christ’s crucifixion by Pontius Pilate (crucifixion was an antecedent event to resurrection).

            When antagonistic sources confirm Christ’s crucifixion, historians trust that Christ was indeed crucified. While Christ’s disciples may have an innate bias to affirm the crucifixion, Tacitus, as the unsympathetic source, had no reason whatsoever to affirm Christ’s crucifixion. This process of validating a historical account is termed as the “Criterion of Unsympathetic Sources.”

            Confirmation by Eyewitnesses: Historians trust both the reports of eyewitnesses and reports written closer to the event described. This is termed as the “Criterion of Early Attestation.”

            Therefore, historians trust that Apostle Paul preserved an oral tradition about Christ’s resurrection that goes back to the early Christian church or the Jerusalem apostles, who were eyewitnesses to Christ’s resurrection. Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church narrates Christ’s resurrection from the perspective of the eyewitnesses and also as a written record of Christ’s resurrection closer to the time of Christ’s resurrection, For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Corinthians 15: 3-7, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

Minimal-Facts Affirms Christ’s Resurrection

            Furthermore, Dr. Gary Habermas, Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and Chairman of the Department of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University, who specializes in the study of Resurrection-of-Jesus research, states five highly credible historical facts a.k.a. “Minimal Facts” that almost every historian accepts:

            “1) Jesus died due to crucifixion.

            2) His disciples had experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus.

            3) Their lives were transformed because of this conviction.

            4) As a result, they proclaimed this message very soon after Jesus’ death, actually within weeks…

            5) A man named Saul of Tarsus was converted to Jesus Christ by what he also concluded was a personal appearance of the risen Jesus to him.

            These are five tough facts that virtually everyone is going to grant as historical, especially the scholars who have studied this area.” 3

            Moreover, Habermas includes the conversion of Apostle James, brother of Christ Jesus and a skeptic, who became a follower of Christ after HE appeared to him. These historical facts are sufficient to conclude that Christ’s resurrection was factual.

Defeating Objections to Resurrection

            Christ’s Disciples Hallucinated: The detractors of Christianity may argue that Christ’s disciples hallucinated and that they did not see the real Jesus.

            Habermas offers reasonable refutations to defeat the hallucination hypothesis: 4

            1. Hallucinations do not occur to groups. On the contrary, the risen Christ appeared to groups of people (1 Corinthians 15: 5-7).

            2. Those that experienced the risen Jesus were different genders and different personalities – the hardhearted Peter, tender-hearted John, soft-hearted Marys. It is rather implausible for people that are so different (personality, gender, time and place of sighting the risen Jesus) to hallucinate the same risen Jesus. They would not have been in the proper frame of mind to hallucinate.

            3. Hallucinations do not change people, whereas the apostles were thoroughly changed when they saw the risen Jesus. These disciples were so changed that they were gave up their lives for Christ’s sake.

            4. The conversion of Apostle Paul and James, the brother of Jesus, also defeats the hallucination hypothesis. Paul was actively persecuting Christians. James was a skeptic. Neither of them would have longed to hallucinate the risen Jesus. So both these men would not have been in the proper frame of mind to hallucinate the risen Christ.

            Given these reasonable evidences, we could reasonably conclude that those who posited the hallucination hypothesis probably hallucinated this hypothesis.

            Jesus Did Not Die At The Cross (Swoon Theory):5 The Quran states that Jesus did not die on the cross. Other detractors of Christianity state that Jesus merely swooned or lost consciousness at the cross.

            Medical science strongly suggests that Jesus died of asphyxiation. The heart wound inflicted by the soldier upon the crucified Christ confirmed Christ’s death. The sucking chest condition (Piercing of the spear into Christ’s upper thoracic area would have prevented effective breathing and produce sucking sound from the wound. This would have certainly killed Christ) is an added affirmation for Christ’s death on the cross.

            But the supreme defeater to the objection that Christ did not die on the cross comes from the German liberal scholar, David Strauss.

            Strauss asserted that the swoon theory was self-contradictory. If swoon theory was accurate, then Jesus would have been alive. The disciples then would have no reason to preach the gospel, for there need be no forgiveness, no church, and no eternal hope in Christ.

            Finally, we can safely bury the swoon theory for we also have the affirmation of Christ’s crucifixion by non-Christian historians such as Thallus (52AD), Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD), Josephus (93AD), Pliny the Younger (112AD), Cornelius Tacitus (116AD), and Phlegon (140AD).

            Jesus Was Buried Elsewhere: 6 Absence of authentic evidences placing Jesus’ body elsewhere and the earlier source that Mark used for his gospel narrative are sufficient for the historians to believe that Christ was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s family burial cave.


            Be assured that every objection against resurrection could be reasonably defended with the evidences already at hand.

            Habermas’ words constitute the most appropriate conclusion, “Now, if you’re sitting there wondering, “Look, I don’t know. I’m a Hindu. I’m a Buddhist. I’m an agnostic. I’m an atheist.” Sure, you can walk away and not believe in Jesus, but do you know what? I don’t think you can walk away and say there’s no data. I don’t think you can walk away and say that there are no facts. I really wonder if you want to throw out or to ignore these facts because we can get to each one of them independently and for multiple reasons.
            But do you know where all this is going? Paul says that it’s because of the resurrection that death has no sting. It’s because of the resurrection that the grave has no victory. Because of the resurrection of Jesus we have the precious opportunity for eternal life. But we need to say “I do” to Jesus. It’s all in whether we make that commitment…If you don’t say “I do” to Jesus, what do you have? You still haven’t trusted his teachings. “O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?” [1 Cor. 15:55] I leave you with the words of Jesus: “Because I live, ye shall live also.” [John 14:19]” 7


Websites cited were last accessed on 27th March 2016.



3, p54.

4 Ibid, p57-58.

5 Ibid, p65-66.

6 Ibid, p68-70.

7 Ibid, p87.

Monday, March 21, 2016

The Bible Has Errors, What Do We Do?

            Should our faith weaken if the Bible is proven to be with errors? Isn’t the Bible the core of Christianity? If the core of Christianity is erroneous, shouldn’t Christianity crumble?

            If these thoughts resonate in you, you are not totally off the mark.   

            To relentlessly assault the Bible is the fervent passion of many. To rattle the faith of the Christians is their vocation.    

            As if to add to this predicament, quite a few evangelical Christian scholars and institutions are migrating away from committing to inerrancy i.e. the Bible is without errors. But interestingly, they commit to Bible’s infallibility i.e. the Bible is incapable of failing.

            Broadly there are two categories of Christians in the context of Historic Christianity and biblical inerrancy. The biblical inerrantists defend the view that the Bible is without errors with all their intellect and might.1 The other group, the non-inerrantists, is rather lenient in this position. They consider the Bible as a document that is susceptible to errors, but not in the matters pertaining to the redemptive (salvation).

            For instance, the National Association of Evangelicals, in their statement of faith, do not commit to inerrancy of the Bible, “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.” 2 In this view, biblical inerrancy is limited to matters pertaining to salvation and not the entire content of the Bible.

            The limited inerrancy view offers room for the Bible to err in non-redemptive matters – matters that are not salvific by nature e.g. geographical, historical, scientific etc. The proponents of this view state that the main purpose of the Bible is “spiritual transformation” – to bring the lost man into a saving relationship with God. They then affirm that “If the Bible contains some errors, some discrepancies, that do not affect its power to transform lives through faith-filled communion with God, that is not important.” 3

            But the unlimited or total inerrancy view does not offer any room for the Bible to err. The unlimited inerrancy view affirms that the Bible is true in all its content, be it redemption, history or science.

            Those who defend total inerrancy state, We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science” (Art. 12). It further declares that: “The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own (A Short Statement, 5, emphasis added).”4

            The picture becomes rather clear now.

            Those who believe that the Bible contains no errors or the biblical inerrantists or those subscribing to the unlimited inerrancy view hold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as an essential doctrine of Historic Christianity.5  The non-inerrantists or those who hold to the limited inerrancy view do not consider the doctrine of inerrancy as a core tenet of Historic Christianity.

            If the Bible is proven to be with errors, you and I could respond in two broad ways. These options are predicated on whether we hold the doctrine of inerrancy as an essential doctrine to Christian faith or not.

            If you consider inerrancy as an essential doctrine, and, if the Bible is proven to be with errors, then your faith could weaken. But if you consider inerrancy as a non-essential doctrine, and, you consider the Bible as a document that is not erroneous in the redemptive but otherwise susceptible to errors, then your faith would not weaken.

            Easier said than done!

            Those who consider the Bible to be without any errors (biblical inerrantists) argue against the argument that the Bible has errors but is infallible (biblical non-inerrantists).6 Their argument is predicated on two very strong facts:

            A. God cannot lie either intentionally or unintentionally. If the Bible is God’s Word, and if God cannot lie, then the Bible ought to be without error.

            B. Christ (God-incarnate) proclaimed that God’s Word is without any errors (cf. John 10:35 & Matthew 5: 18).

            So it is quite plausible that the Bible cannot or should not err.

            But think from another vantage point.

            Would an erroneous Bible entail the non-existence of God? No, not by any chance!

            God exists necessarily. God’s existence is not predicated or intricately linked to the veracity of the Bible. In other words, God will not cease to exist if the Bible is erroneous.

            In fact, God existed even before the Bible was written. It was God who inspired the human authors to write the Bible. Bible reveals God. However, the Bible is not the only source that reveals God (cf. Romans 1: 19-20).

            The Lord Jesus Christ, the means to salvation of mankind, existed independent of the Bible’s veracity. For instance, history affirms Christ’s existence and resurrection.

            Dr. Gary Habermas asserts that Jesus death by crucifixion, HIS postmortem appearances to HIS disciples, and Paul’s vision of the resurrected Christ, are the most affirmed historical facts by both Christian and non-Christian scholars. 7

            Therefore, if the Bible is proven to be with errors, neither would God cease to exist nor would Christ. If history affirms Christ’s resurrection, then salvation through Christ is also a fact that remains independent of the Bible.

            This is not an exercise to undermine Bible’s authority. This is a mere exercise to affirm the independent existence (apart from the Bible) of God, the Lord Jesus Christ and salvation of mankind through Christ.8

            Therefore, even if the Bible is proven to contain errors, it would not and cannot undermine God, Christ and salvation of mankind. In other words, Christianity would not crumble if the Bible is proven to be with errors.

            God is at the core of Christianity. Christ and the salvation that HE offered to mankind are at the core of Christianity.

            But inerrancy of the Bible need not be at the core of Christianity. If inerrancy of the Bible is to remain at the core of Christianity, then it would presuppose that inerrancy of the Bible is far superior in value to God, Christ and salvation. However, since God is the source of the Bible, God ought to be at the core of Christianity and not the inerrancy of the Bible. Inerrancy is the corollary of God’s nature.

            Unfortunately, this is not what Bart Ehrman thought. Bart Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, lost his faith in Christ because he apparently discovered one minor error in the gospels. It seemed Professor Ehrman held the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as the core of Christianity. 

            When a particular passage in the Gospel of Mark befuddled Bart Ehrman, his strong belief in inerrancy of the Bible was shaken. He became a liberal Christian and then ended up as an agnostic atheist after being unable to reconcile the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.9

            So should inerrancy be an essential doctrine of Christianity? Maybe so. However, God who is the source of the Bible ought to be at the core of Christianity and not the inerrancy of the Bible. Disputing inerrancy would not and cannot damage God or Christ or salvation of mankind.

            The theme of this article is intended to touch the scores of ordinary Christians. By ordinary Christians, I refer to Christians who are not into serious Christian pedagogy or academics.

            The full blown wrath of Christianity’s detractors, such as the New Atheists, is aimed to rattle the faith of these ordinary Christians. At the first instance, when you hear the relentless tirades of these detractors, your faith in Christ may shake.

            The scope of this article is only to emphasize that the inerrancy of the Bible is not the beginning and the end of Christianity. The scope of this article excludes a defense of inerrancy.

            So, fear not!

            God is at the core of Christianity. Christ and the salvation offered to mankind are at the core of Christianity. The Bible reveals our triune God. The Scripture cannot be broken. Let us continue to totally trust and study God and HIS Word. Amen.   










8 I personally subscribe to the 3-ins – inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.


Monday, March 14, 2016

Could Christians Believe Theistic Evolution?

            Darwinian evolution is the unguided change in the gene pool of a population through mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift over long periods of time. The key word in Darwinian evolution is “unguided.” The term “unguided” refers to God’s absence in the neo-Darwinistic evolution equation.

            Theistic evolution, on the contrary, reconciles Darwinian evolution to theism by importing God into the fabric of evolution. Since evolution is diametrically opposed to creation (a belief that God created the universe as in the creation narrative in the book of Genesis), the question we need to ask is “Was God involved in evolution or did God create the living and the non-living as in the Biblical narrative?”

            Theistic evolution broadly states that God guided the evolutionary process over millions of years. This view of evolution smuggles God through the back door into the neo-Darwinistic evolution equation! This evolution seems to be for science-lovers and Bible-doubters (of the creation narrative) who believe both in God and the Darwinian evolution.

            Christians who believe in theistic evolution ought to resolve these strong dilemmas:

Diluting God’s Attributes

            On one hand is the creation account where God created everything by the power of HIS Word in six days. On the other hand, the theory of evolution, under the assumption of being scientific, posits the evolved existence of the living and the non-living over millions of years.

            Why did God wait for millions of years to create? It seems that God’s powerless; hence HE waited for HIS creation to evolve over millions of years. Attributing powerlessness to God is a severely debauched position.

            While creation is teleological with a purpose, goal and an end, evolution is accidental. Chaos is a means to evolution, for evolution is absolute randomness.

            The wise and almighty God would not create the universe through chaos. In other words, what mandates God to create the universe out of randomness? God would not cause construction from destruction, for to cause it in such a manner is to mitigate God’s wisdom.

Debunking Adam, Eve & The Bible

            Those who believe in evolution discard Adam & Eve as the first human beings. Science does not provide us with any evidence whether the first human evolved was a male, female or a transgender or whether both man and woman evolved at the same time.

            Discarding Adam & Eve is infinitely troublesome for a Christian.

            To reconcile evolution without Adam & Eve from within the biblical framework would essentially undermine the Bible. The Bible teaches that Adam & Eve were actual human beings created in the image of God.

            Adam & Eve are not limited to the book of Genesis but they appear repeatedly in the Bible. In Luke 3: 23-38, Christ’s genealogy is traced back to Adam. Adam being a myth would contradict Luke. Why did Luke go through the trouble of tracing Christ’s lineage if Adam was a myth? If Adam was a myth, then the Bible cannot be trusted.

            The Bible speaks about Christ as the last Adam. If Adam was a myth, then Christ may also have not existed. Therefore, theistic evolution effectively undermines the Bible. (Thankfully, both the Bible and extra-biblical resources affirm the existence of Christ.)

Disbelieving Christ

            Theistic evolution, in its essence, motivates a disbelief in Christ.

            Consider this simple instance. Evolution scandalizes Adam & Eve into mythical personalities. But Christ taught the existence of Adam and Eve, ““Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’” (Matthew 19: 4, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

            If Christ referred to the existence of Adam & Eve, we should either believe evolution or Christ. We cannot believe in both evolution and Christ, since they mutually contradict each other in the context of Adam and Eve.

            Evolution implies that Christ lied about Adam & Eve. If Christ lied about Adam and Eve, then one could think that Christ lied about everything else also. Hence, theistic evolution motivates a disbelief in Christ.

Demeaning Salvation

            Creationism posits goodness of all God’s creation. Although he was created good, man disobeyed God when he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil a.k.a. the fall (Genesis 3: 6-7).  Salvation was necessitated by the fall of man.

            If Darwinian evolution is true, there was no fall to begin with. Death and suffering are intrinsic to the world even before the creation of human beings. Theistic evolution posits man’s intrinsic selfishness and negates the fall of man, “According to Karl Giberson in Saving Darwin, human beings were flawed and sinful from the very start because they were produced by an evolutionary process driven by selfishness. Thus, there was no “Fall” from original goodness in the history of humanity.” 1

            If there was no fall – an act of disobedience to God, there is no need for salvation – an act of belief and obedience to God.

            Moreover, the future of salvation is to restore everything to its original state of goodness by eliminating evil and death to usher new heavens and a new earth for an eternal cohabitation of man with God (cf. Acts 3: 21). If theistic evolution is true, the original state of the earth was death and suffering, not goodness. Death will continue to exist without a plausibility of restoration.

            Salvation presupposes man’s sinfulness, and is predicated on the fact that Christ, God-incarnate, came into the world (in the form of a man), to sacrifice HIS life to save man of his sins.

            Sin, according to the Bible, was not caused by God but entered into the realm of mankind through the freewill of angels and man. Theistic evolution, by virtue of undermining Adam & Eve and the subsequent fall, posits sin and evil’s existence even before the existence of the first humans. Notwithstanding that, the theistic evolutionist posits God as the creator of evil and sin.

            This view of the divine renders God as a maximally evil being. An evil God would not liberate man from evil and sin. Therefore, biblical salvation is demeaned by theistic evolutionists.

Denigrating Biblical Interpretation

            The Bible should interpret itself. You and I cannot impose our views into the Bible. Similarly, science cannot interpret the Bible.

            Theistic evolution interprets the creation account from within the framework of science. Allowing science to interpret the Bible is gross injustice to God and HIS living Word.

            Science does not possess the power or the authority to interpret God’s Word. God is greater than science. God causes science. In fact, science is a mere means to understanding God’s architecture of this universe. So the “means” has neither the power nor the authority to interpret the actions of the “cause.” 


            Organizations such as BioLogos2 advocate for harmony between science and religion. They seduce and strangle the Christian churches to evolve their teaching from creationism to theistic evolution so to be aligned to the 21st century thought.

            That which undermines God should be rejected categorically. Theistic evolution rigorously undermines God, “In the initial years after Darwin’s theory was proposed, most theistic evolutionists believed that God guided the evolutionary process to specific ends. However, as the Darwinian view of the undirected nature of evolution gradually solidified in the scientific community, defenders of theistic evolution increasingly disowned the idea of guided evolution. Consequently, many leading proponents of theistic evolution today insist that Darwinian evolution by definition is an undirected process and that not even God knows what the process will produce with certainty or specificity.”3

            Theistic evolution is “design by chance” - an oxymoron. Just as the concept of “married bachelor” cannot even be a figment of one’s imagination, design by chance is an utterly imaginative concept.

            Significantly, theistic evolution presents strong dilemmas as stated above. Therefore, Christians should not believe in theistic evolution.





Monday, March 7, 2016

Questioning Evolution

            Evolution is not a perfect theory, for evolutionists are yet to answer the most fundamental questions.

            The term “Evolution” is an umbrella term to encompass three very diverse aspects:1

            1. Small-scale changes within a species or genepool a.k.a. microevolution (e.g. evolution of new varieties of dogs).

            2. All organisms have descended from a single common ancestor a.k.a. Universal Common Descent / Macroevolution.

            3. Unguided process of natural selection acting upon random mutation as the primary mechanism of driving the evolution of life a.k.a. Neo-Darwinism / Macroevolution.

            Most creationists affirm microevolution. The macroevolution divides the population.        

            The public perception is dreadfully wrong in understanding evolution and creation. The general public perceives evolution to be highly scientific and thinks that the entire scientific community endorses the veracity of evolution.

            The average man or woman considers creation to be thoroughly unscientific. They think that only the mindless theists, who, by definition, [apparently] hate science, consider creation to be factual. This is so wrong!

            The entire scientific community does not endorse Darwinian evolution. “Dissent from Darwin” website reveals the growing number of scientists disputing the Darwinian evolution.

            Consider the words of a few scientists who dispute Neo-Darwinism: 2

            “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.” (Evolutionary biologist late Lynn Margulis - member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences)

            “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” (Past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse)

            “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (Biochemist Franklin Harold)

            “the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.” (Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel)

            Among the scientific community, renowned evolutionary biologists who have pronounced the death of Neo-Darwinism are Francisco Ayala and the late Lyn Margulis of the “Attenburg 16” (group of evolutionary biologists who met at Attenburg, Austria in 2008 to explore the mechanisms behind evolution).

            The scientific community is divided over evolution because evolution is yet to answer certain fundamental questions!

Origin Of Matter: Where Did Matter Come From?

            Something could not have come from nothing. Matter could not have created itself, for to create itself matter should have been in existence (to create) and at the same time matter should not be in existence (to be created). This is a contradiction. Moreover, if energy is required to create matter, where did the original energy come from?

            If we consider the universe as a case in point, one argument that could be posited is that of an eternal universe – the universe always existed. But the 2nd law of thermodynamics (flow of thermal energy) contradicts this notion. Our universe is constantly losing energy.

            Our universe could not have been infinitely old, since it would have lost all energy by now. Evolutionists believe that there is no outside source for energy, for they do not believe in God. If evolution is factual, our universe would have ceased to exist. Thankfully, our universe exists and evolution remains a theory.

            Our universe still has usable energy. This indicates that it is not infinitely old; rather it had a beginning, during which it was wound up with energy needed for sustenance. 

            Cosmologist Sean Carroll proposed a mathematical model for an eternal universe (with an infinite past). But in a physical world it is impossible to count down an infinite number of years, which is why mathematician George Ellis and physicist Joe Silk, in an article in Nature, ruled out infinity, since it occurs nowhere in the universe.3

Life From Nonlife: How Did The First Life Originate?

            Secular minds do not recognize God, but life is in existence. So they have to explain how life came into being. They then posit a solution that life must have originated via a natural, spontaneous event.

            The most basic aspect of scientific test is observation. Thus far, science has not offered an experiment proving origin of life from spontaneous natural processes. On the contrary, we constantly observe that life comes from life (biogenesis), which is a scientific law.

            Life is a fascinatingly complicated and a sophisticated operating system. All that science has managed to conjure up until now is creative experiments proposing the formation of strangely structured rings of amino acids and a few organic molecules. But life is not a mere collection of a few organic molecules. Science has not managed to come close to explaining origin of life. Moreover, developments in genetics, molecular biology, and biochemistry et al. push life outside the reach of natural and spontaneous processes.

            What would happen if scientists do manage to prove that life could indeed originate from non-life? Should evolution then be unanimously believed? Would God then be irrelevant and dumped into the dungeons of darkness?

            No! Not by any chance!

            Dr. Kevin Anderson, Director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center, debunks this claim. 4 If scientists do happen to prove life’s origin in a laboratory from elemental components through a carefully controlled and designed process, their accomplishment will use not only preexisting components, but knowledge gained over decades of scientific research and understanding. This is not a creation of life, but a semi-synthetic reassembly of life.

            This is not a spontaneous creation of life, but this creation demonstrates the extensive amount of knowledge required to create life. This is an act of plagiarizing the life systems that already exists albeit by discrediting the author of life, God.  

Information Of Life: Where Did The Information To Life Come From?

            Life, in essence, is the information that operates all parts of an organism for metabolism, growth, reproduction and adaption to environment. Life requires vast amount of intangible information stored in the DNA.

            Scientists still endeavor to answer the question, “where did the information to life come from?” Such information can only come from pre-existing higher source of information.

            Information is an intangible nonmaterial entity, separate from mass and energy, without material or physical existence. Other examples of such nonmaterial entities are mathematics, logic, thoughts, emotion, consciousness etc.

            Interestingly, the most useful aspects of our universe are nonmaterial entities. This information is comparable to an operating system of a computer or a mobile device. This intangible operating system offers life to the device.

            Dr. Werner Gitt, specialist in information theory, proved that only nonmaterial entities can create new information. 5 Evolution, by definition, is a materialistic system predicated on unguided random processes. So evolutionists ought to explain how a materialistic system adds nonmaterial information to the DNA so to effect changes from one species to another and how the first cell acquired information to activate its life. 

Irreducible Complexity: Complex Organs That Cannot Be Reduced In Complexity

            The defining test of evolution, as Charles Darwin emphasized, is that complex organs evolve through small evolutionary steps. Any complex organ could have only become complex through small steps of evolution.

            But Darwin honestly emphasized the innate risk in evolution, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

            Dr. Michael Behe in his exemplary work, “Darwin’s Black Box,” broke down the Darwinian evolution by positing “Irreducible Complexity” through the extremely complex architecture of the bacteria E.Coli’s flagellar system. Dr. Behe argued that the flagellar system could not have evolved, “An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional”.6

            Presence of complex organs continues to be evolution’s achilles heel. Although evolutionists continue to suggest theories about the possible origin of any complex organ, scientists from the opposing camp have found flaws in their theories. These recent refutations are a case in point. 7

            Desperate for answers, evolutionists have even redefined Darwinian evolution by appealing to “neutral evolution” (changes in DNA not resulting in a change in biological function). But neutral evolution is only possible under impossible odds, for it’s a matter of pure luck.8

            Someone said this, the chance of evolution actually happening is about as likely as a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outer space and knocking down a satellite that then crashes onto a target on the back of a truck speeding down the highway. Even with billions of years, that’s not going to happen.


Cited websites were last accessed on 7th March 2016.


2 Ibid.



5 Ibid.

6 Darwin’s Black Box, 1996, p. 39