-2

I became a Christian a couple of years ago and then converted to the Roman Catholic faith, but very recently I have started having doubts in my faith, especially the evidence for God, so my question is, is there any scientific evidence for God and if so what is the scientific evidence?

4
  • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
    – depperm
    Commented Jan 12 at 11:51
  • What do you mean by Science?
    – eques
    Commented Jan 12 at 16:00
  • 1
    @NigelJ while this user does start with some basic personal anecdote, the essential question is impersonal, namely is there scientific evidence for God.
    – eques
    Commented Jan 12 at 16:00
  • I think this would be better suited as a question about fine tuning or other similar science based arguments for God in philosophy stack exchange.
    – Luke Hill
    Commented Jan 12 at 16:01

4 Answers 4

1

Is there any scientific evidence for God's existence?

For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God, no explanation is possible. - The Song of Bernadette

Before going on into the crux of this matter, I would like to point out that it it is generally known that many scientists are atheists. That does not mean that they are anti-religious. They simply do not believe in God. Some might say that it comes with the territory.

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public. - Scientists and Belief

In a philosophical sense the greatest proof we can offer is that of the first cause argument.

Proofs for the Existence of God

The Existence of God

1. The First Cause

Everything has a cause...

It is illogical to suggest that something had no cause. This is where the theory of evolution becomes inadequate. It can not explain how anything began, let alone life. When we consider the evidence (that there are things which exist) it logically demands that either something or someone caused it. We can then rule out ‘something’ as the solution since we would be returning to the original problem — what made the something? This demands that the First Cause must be an uncreated First Cause. That is, the First Cause has always existed (eternal). We don’t have to understand how this is possible, but it is reasonable to apprehend that it must be so.

The late Professor Stephen Hawking advanced the idea that the cosmos could have sprung into existence from nothing without a cause. He claimed that the pre-existent force of gravity could have supplied the energy and impetus to cause the Big Bang. This idea, of course, undermined his earlier seminal work with Professor Roger Penrose, where they demonstrated that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal. Hawking’s latter theories regarding cosmology (how the universe began) did not find wide acceptance among his peers and those who work in the field of cosmology because it is generally acknowledged that Prof. Hawking committed two errors. Firstly, he presupposed that ‘laws’ have creative power, and secondly, for his theory to be established he had to redefine nothing as having positive properties in which gravity could exist. Clearly his assumption about nothing begs the question because it fails to account for what caused these positive properties to exist without themselves being caused. And while we refer to observable, repeatable, testable, universal, physical interactions, such as gravity, as ‘laws’, this is a man-made designation and the ‘law’ itself possesses no mind which is a necessary and essential attribute for a First Cause.

2. The Universe Exhibits Design

There is evidence for design…

The unraveling of the Human Genome Code was announced to the world as the discovery of the language of the Creator by then President, Bill Clinton. What scientists discovered was an extremely sophisticated genetic language necessary for even the simplest life forms to exist. To believe that this level of apparent design happened either randomly or by chance is a mathematical equation of probability with more zeros than I care to type (plus I don’t know what the word is for numbers which are thousands of trillions!).

The universe displays an amazingly complex level of interdependency which logically leads to the conclusion that it was designed that way. There are just too many coincidences of such “just rightness” for it too be a random haphazard coincidence. The earth is “just the right” distance from the Sun; it contains “just the right” mixture of chemicals and gases to sustain life; humans have “just the right” ability to breath these gases; the human body has “just the right” synergy of internal organs in order to function, and so on.

Its important to note that the Bible does not give a date for the commencement of creation of the universe, or the date for the creation of mankind. The universe may well be 13,700,000,000 years old, and mankind’s origins may well be as recent as 150,000 – 200,000 years ago. These numbers are in no way counter to the Biblical record, and extremely compatible with the evidence. (See, “Who Was Adam?” by Dr. Fazale Rana, and Dr Hugh Ross, RTB Press, 2015, p. 66-67.)

The universe displays an amazingly complex level of interdependency which logically leads to the conclusion that it was designed that way. There are just too many coincidences of such “just rightness” for it too be a random haphazard coincidence. The earth is “just the right” distance from the Sun; it contains “just the right” mixture of chemicals and gases to sustain life; humans have “just the right” ability to breath these gases; the human body has “just the right” synergy of internal organs in order to function, and so on.

Its important to note that the Bible does not give a date for the commencement of creation of the universe, or the date for the creation of mankind. The universe may well be 13,700,000,000 years old, and mankind’s origins may well be as recent as 150,000 – 200,000 years ago. These numbers are in no way counter to the Biblical record, and extremely compatible with the evidence. (See, “Who Was Adam?” by Dr. Fazale Rana, and Dr Hugh Ross, RTB Press, 2015, p. 66-67.)

3. Universal Moral Laws

There is intrinsic morality which needs a point of reference...

How do we know what ‘evil’ is? How do we know what ‘good’ is? These concepts demand either the existence of a standard to make such evaluations, or an understanding what these concepts mean. Each of us are born with an innate sense of morality. We each instinctively know what is right and wrong. It is incredible to consider that no matter time, culture, geographic location, or people, the Moral Law has been universally acknowledged.

William Lane Craig says it this way:

“1. If God does not exist objective moral values do not exist.

  1. Objective moral values do exist.

  2. Therefore, God exists.”

Dr. William Lane Craig, “The Moral Argument, Part1”, Defenders Podcast, 15th October 2007

4. The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

Dead men do not ordinarily come back to life...

Skeptics may dispute this historical claim that Jesus Christ rose again from the dead but they do so at their peril. This is because there is enough evidence to validate it and it is the point at which all of the history of Christ and Christianity rests. This means that if anything of Christ and Christianity is true then the Physical Resurrection of Christ is also true. The opposite is also true. If Christ did not literally rise from the dead then none of his history or teachings have any credence.

But if the resurrection of Christ can be seen as a reasonable historic fact (based on over 500 eye-witnesses, the preparedness of all of those witnesses to defend their testimonies even at the point of losing their lives, the resultant baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues- still available today) then this is perhaps the most overwhelming piece of proof for the existence of God.The proofs for the physical resurrection of Jesus the Christ include:

1. Eye Witnesses

The first Christians based their entire case on the truthfulness of the physical resurrection of Christ. To them, if Christ did not rise from the dead, then their message had absolutely no credibility. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. - First Corinthians 15:14

Since the claim of Christ’s resurrection was central to the earliest Christians’ message, all their opponents had to do to rebut this naturally outrageous claim was to produce the corpse of Christ. There were eyewitnesses to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. These eyewitnesses numbered in the hundreds. At one time there were up to 500 at one time who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. While some may contend that the resurrection of Jesus was merely wishful on the part of His followers who simply got lost in the ecstasy of wanting His resurrection to be true, it should be noted that it is impossible for 500 people at one time to see the same “hallucination.”

But was there merely a conspiracy to lie about the resurrection of Jesus? Considering that the testimony of these witnesses brought about swift and severe retribution from authorities, it seems an incredible claim to make that these people merely lied about being eye-witnesses to the resurrection of Christ. People hardly lie to their own detriment. That is, we generally lie to advantage ourselves not to disadvantage ourselves!

2. The Realisation of the Promised Experience With The Holy Spirit

On the Jewish Day of Pentecost, the Christian Church was birthed with a miraculous event (the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of tongues and prophecy) which Jesus assured them would only happen after He was resurrected from the dead.

“…if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.” - Prof. Paul L. Maier

3. The Inability of Christianity’s Opponents To Produce The Corpse of Jesus

Peter addressed the crowd of thousands immediately after this miraculous commotion.

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.” - Acts 2:22-24

Peter based the truthfulness of his entire message upon the truthfulness and historicity of the resurrection of Christ. If Christ had not died and been resurrected then someone in this vast crowd could have pointed this out. But the claim by Peter went unchallenged!

The empty tomb of Christ was immediately verifiable by the apostles original audience. But it was also falsifiable. The body of Christ was placed in the tomb of a rich man, Joseph of Arimathea, and then sealed (with wax) by the Romans with their insignia displayed. To unlawfully break this seal was punishable by death!

4. The Character of the Eyewitnesses

Those who witnessed the resurrection of Christ were all consistent in their testimony of what they claimed to have seen. One of the most basic investigation techniques a criminal detective has is to ask a witness or suspect the same question over and over. If their testimony is untrue their inconsistency obviously indicates their attempted deception. But if they are consistent in their testimony – and consistent with hundreds of others who claimed the same events to be true, then their truthfulness becomes obvious. “I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.” Professor Thomas Arnold, “History of Rome”, (Chair of Modern History at Oxford)

5. The Claims of Christ Can Be Experienced

You are not a million miles away from God...

Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.” - Matthew 11:28-30

Jesus Christ made some seemingly outrageous claims about the benefits of following Him. He offered “rest” for the weary, ‘nourishment’ for the hungry, ‘water’ for the thirsty, ‘resurrection’ for the dead, ‘direction’ for aimless, ‘liberty’ for the oppressed, ‘protection’ for the vulnerable, ‘healing’ for the hurting, and ‘salvation’ for the lost. I was 15 years of age when I accepted Christ. Never have I ever regretted it. It has been a journey for me that has seen me grow and change. I have felt the Lord guiding me. I can honestly say that I have heard Him speak to me (even though it hasn’t been audibly). He has answered my prayers so often that I now almost take it for granted that my prayers will be answered. He has given my life direction and purpose that I otherwise would never have had.

Today He extends to you the invitation to experience for yourself the claims which He has made. You are not a million miles away from God; you are just one prayer away.

The evidence for the existence of God is available. For honest enquirers there are honest answers. For those who acknowledge that there is at least reasonable evidence (even if not all 5 points of evidence are accepted) then they can no longer claim to be ‘atheist’. Like Professor Flew they can bravely embrace the title ‘theist’ (God believer) without adopting any particular religious framework. Once this position can be reached then the next phase of the journey is to answer the question, ‘Is religion necessary or even helpful in discovering God?’

But How Do We Know that the God of Christians is the Creator that the Evidence points to?

The scientific method has become synonymous with methodological naturalism. This is the idea that the only way knowledge can be apprehended is if it can be observed or mathematically verified. But this is a fairly recent hijacking of what the scientific method means. If we could allow the evidence from scientific method to lead us to certain deductions, that is, follow the same path the Professor Antony Flew went down, whether they be physical or metaphysical, we may be removing the restrictions which might hold us back from the truth – especially if we employ the scientific method in examining any theories involving metaphysical claims.

Since there is sufficient evidence to show that the universe began and therefore must have had a beginning, we must also include the dimensions of time and space as part of that beginning. Therefore the “Beginning Cause” must have been outside of time and space. This is one of the central claims of the Bible about God: He is eternal and dwells ‘above the heavens’ (Heb. 7:26) – that is, God is outside of time and space. At this point, we could apply these deductions using the scientific method to dismiss the claims of certain religions which present their “God” as being a part of time and space (pantheism). This includes Buddhism and Hinduism.

Within time and space there is moral-evil, corruption, and decay. Yet, the One who caused the universe has also given identifiable moral laws, which are often referred to as Natural Law (see Prof. J. Budziszewski, ‘What We Can’t Not Know’), from which we all seem to universally have a sense of right and wrong / just and unjust. It seems to stand to reason then that the Creator-Law-Giver must Himself keep these laws. If there is no such Law-Giver, then there can be no ultimate justice since there would be no Judge to administer justice. This makes sin the source of evil and the ultimate problem for all mankind. While Islam teaches that there will be a ‘Final Judgment’ (interestingly to be done by Jesus Christ according to the Qur’an), it does not regard sin as the reason for this judgment, and therefore it does not see any need for atonement of sins before this Final Judgment. Hinduism does not regard moral failure (sin) as the problem of the Human condition and does not depict Brahma as the Ultimate Judge. Only the God of the Bible is presented as being as supremely holy (without sin and therefore without evil), immutable (unchanging in moral character which is in contradistinction to either Islam or Hinduism), and impeccable (only capable of good and upholding perfectly His moral laws, which again is in contradistinction to Islam’s concept of ‘Allah’ who is morally arbitrary). Perhaps the simplest test for discovering the identity of the Creator-God is to employ the scientific method in a spiritual way by putting Psalm 34:8 and Matthew 7:7 to the test.

5 Proofs For The Existence of God

Even St. Thomas Aquinas defends the first cause argument:

Saint Thomas has four versions of this basic argument.

First, he argues that the chain of movers must have a first mover because nothing can move itself. (Moving here refers to any kind of change, not just change of place.) If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin, and if it never began, it could not go on and exist now. But it does go on, it does exist now. Therefore it began, and therefore there is a first mover.

Second, he expands the proof from proving a cause of motion to proving a cause of existence, or efficient cause. He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the universe's coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (i.e., caused causes) are dependent on (i.e., caused by) a first cause (i.e., an uncaused cause). But there are second causes all around us. Therefore there must be a first cause.

Third, he argues that if there were no eternal, necessary, and immortal being, if everything had a possibility of not being, of ceasing to be, then eventually this possibility of ceasing to be would be realized for everything. In other words, if everything could die, then, given infinite time, everything would eventually die. But in that case nothing could start up again. We would have universal death, for a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause itself or anything else to begin to exist again. And if there is no God, then there must have been infinite time, the universe must have been here always, with no beginning, no first cause. But this universal death has not happened; things do exist! Therefore there must be a necessary being that cannot not be, cannot possibly cease to be. That is a description of God.

Fourth, there must also be a first cause of perfection or goodness or value. We rank things as more or less perfect or good or valuable. Unless this ranking is false and meaningless, unless souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs, there must be a real standard of perfection to make such a hierarchy possible, for a thing is ranked higher on the hierarchy of perfection only insofar as it is closer to the standard, the ideal, the most perfect. Unless there is a most-perfect being to be that real standard of perfection, all our value judgments are meaningless and impossible. Such a most-perfect being, or real ideal standard of perfection, is another description of God. - The First Cause Argument

Seeing that it is your Catholic Faith that is wavering, I thought it good to give you some thought on the subject of faith and reason (science) by Pope John Paul II from his encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) of September 14, 1988.

In the field of scientific research, a positivistic mentality took hold which not only abandoned the Christian vision of the world, but more especially rejected every appeal to a metaphysical or moral vision. It follows that certain scientists, lacking any ethical point of reference, are in danger of putting at the centre of their concerns something other than the human person and the entirety of the person's life. Further still, some of these, sensing the opportunities of technological progress, seem to succumb not only to a market-based logic, but also to the temptation of a quasi-divine power over nature and even over the human being.

As a result of the crisis of rationalism, what has appeared finally is nihilism. As a philosophy of nothingness, it has a certain attraction for people of our time. Its adherents claim that the search is an end in itself, without any hope or possibility of ever attaining the goal of truth. In the nihilist interpretation, life is no more than an occasion for sensations and experiences in which the ephemeral has pride of place. Nihilism is at the root of the widespread mentality which claims that a definitive commitment should no longer be made, because everything is fleeting and provisional. - Fides et Ratio

0

Is there any scientific evidence for God's existence?

Yes. Too much to adequately cover in a short article. Therefore I will only attempt to hit a few high points and provide sources where you can find more detailed information.

Life and the Cosmos

The primary evidence is in the form of Creation itself, and Life. Although Materialism tries to explain these phenomena without reference to a divine being, those explanations are full of holes and ad hoc adjustments for which we have no evidence (e.g. inflation, dark matter) aside from being necessary to conform the hypothesis to observed data. In addition, Materialism posits a number of formational processes that are exceedingly improbable, often contrary to observed physics, and have never themselves been observed. Indeed, there are atheist scientists that reject the Materialist explanation for Life ("Common Descent") because it isn't consistent with science: "[Neo-Darwinism] ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation".

On the other hand, we continuously find that Life and the greater cosmos exist in an unimaginably fine balance (the so-called "fine tuning problem") and exhibit incomprehensible complexity, both of which are features of Design. To those that aren't committed to an a priori rejection of Design, the evidence for the same is overwhelming.

Scripture, moreover, is quite clear that such is the case. "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1). "His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:20).

Jesus Christ

The secondary evidence comes from the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

The person Jesus of Nazareth almost certainly existed. While it's true we cannot prove this with 100% certainty, it needs to be understood that this runs afoul of the same standards by which we could never prove with 100% certainty that the Universe wasn't Created five minutes ago in an 'already operating' state. Thus, we we say "this is a fact", we don't mean that there is no possibility of doubt, but rather, those doubts are so far fetched that we could not make any statements of "fact" if we were to entertain them. Indeed, the evidence of Jesus' existence (including many written accounts and a handful of physical artifacts) is superior to that of many contemporary figures who, at the time, were far more noteworthy.

Second, we know with similar certainty that Jesus was crucified, and that his body subsequently went missing. (Again, we have multiple testimonies to these events, including sources both non-Scriptural and hostile to Christianity.) Third, we know that many testified that Jesus subsequently appeared to them alive and corporeal (He ate fish, He invited people to touch His body), and were willing to endure torture and death without one single person recanting their testimony. Some of these (Saul-then-Paul, Jesus' brother James) were, prior to their experiences, hostile to Christianity. Even those that weren't experienced a radical transformation of attitude as a result of their experiences.

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus goes into much more detail. The point, however, is that these facts are not disputed, that in combination they clearly indicate the fact of the Resurrection as the most reasonable explanation, and that the Resurrection, particularly in combination with the context of Scripture and Jesus own claims, strongly endorsed the existence of God.

Accuracy of Scripture

It should go without saying that, to the extent Scripture is validated (e.g. through archaeological findings), that would go to support its general veracity. This is especially true when it comes to the Flood, as, while such a cataclysm might be plausible outside Divine intervention, life surviving it without the same is far less plausible. Moreover, if the Flood account is reliable, that bolsters the likelihood of other parts of Genesis being reliable, including Creation and the time lines and genealogies of early Genesis.

That evidence is significant. For one, we find billions of dead plants and animals, buried and preserved by flood action, pretty much anywhere you care to look (even oceanic fossils at the top of Everest), some of them existing in deposits of immense size that show indications of concurrent burial, which would indicate flooding on a scale not seen today. We find massive sedimentary deposits, including ones showing feature-consistency across continent-spanning areas that are unexpected if they were deposited over vast periods. Many of these deposits have further features, such as plastic deformation, intrusions, polystrate fossils, and preserved features that only make sense if they were laid down very rapidly. All of this is consistent with Noah's Flood, and inconsistent with deposition over hundreds of years, much less millions of years. Throughout, we also find 14C and other organic remains that would not be present in things actually millions of years old.

In addition, we find numerous descriptions and depictions of now-extinct animals that are consistent with what we now call "dinosaurs". Combined with the previous evidence of recent existence, this is consistent with "dinosaurs" and humans being Created at the same time and living together. All of this speaks to the historic accuracy of Scripture... and if Scripture is reliable historically, it is that much more likely that it is reliable when it speaks of God's existence.

A Note on Opposing Philosophies

The premise of Materialism is "there is no God". (Scripture has a few things to say on this premise, e.g. Psalm 14:1, Proverbs 9:10.) In their worldview, this axiom is unassailable:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Richard C. Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons)

Note that when Lewontin uses "science" in the above, he really means "Materialism". Insisting that one's own world view is the only one that may be rightly called "science" is a form of ad hominem. What you will often find, and what Lewontin dares to say out loud, is that the way Materialists handle various evidences isn't based on whether those evidences are reliable, but on whether or not they agree with the Materialist axiom. (Consider, for example, the suppression of radiometric dates that don't align with expectations, or the refusal to carbon-date dinosaur bones because the presence of 14C is a serious problem for their paradigm.)

In fact, "I'm going to reject this conclusion because I don't like the implications" has no place in true science; rather, it is about as anti-science as you can get.

By contrast, those that start with the assumptions that a) God exists, and b) Scripture is generally accurate, find far fewer scientific objections to their presuppositions. Humans, by nature, are biased, and it's nearly impossible to start from a position of neutrality, however, the differences in consistency and employment of rescuing devices between Materialism and Christian Creationism are telling.

Additional Resources

This topic has been addressed many times on this SE, and other Answers may provide more detailed information than I have given here. I suggest:

In addition, there are many organizations that are opposed to Materialist pseudo-science (based, as it is, on the unprovable and unscientific axiom that God does not exist.

  • I already mentioned The Third Way, which is a group of atheists that oppose Common Descent. Clearly if those who share Materialism's axiom think its claims are... overstated, we ought to be willing to look at those claims critically rather than accepting them as "fact".
  • The Discovery Institute is a group of not-necessarily-Christians that believe Design is a more plausible explanation for Life. While that Designer isn't necessarily the God of Scripture, evidence of a Designer is consistent with God.
  • Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries, International and the Institute for Creation Reserach are all dedicated to promoting scientific inquiry and demonstrating how (real) science corroborates Scripture.

There are also many, many books on these topics, most of which are promoted by one or more of the above organizations.

-2

The scientific evidence is the existence of life on planet earth. There is a designer who made a decision that only planet earth should have life and not the others. There are also billions of stars in the universe with planets around each and not a single one of them has life.

God who sits on the Great White Throne decides on that.

When I go to paradise, all of these questions we will ask Jesus in the next supper we are going to have in heaven.

-2

All things denote there is a God.

"Science" means "knowledge". When we apply the term to speculations, theories and philosophies of men, it is a misnomer. More than a century ago, there was more honesty in the field. Experimenters did not call themselves "scientiests", they called themselves philosophers, which means those who "love wisdom". Philosophers do not inherently claim to have "knowledge", they only purport to love wisdom. If a philosopher wished to understand physics or nature, he would call himself a natural philosopher. This liberates us from false notions such as that the . The very word "secular" comes from Latin siglo, meaning "an age or generation", or in other words, what is secular is a fad that was big enough to delude an entire generation, but a fad nonetheless. So much for flat-Earth theories, geocentrism, and so much more.

Evolution is not true. Life cannot arise spontaneously from non-life. Abiogenesis is false. This has been proven even under very generous conditions. Meiosis fully explains adaptation in sexed organisms. Mutation only explains increases in infertility, disease and death, which are the accepted definition of speciation, which is often erroneously used to "demonstrate" that the reverse occurs. It is merely a label swap. Devolution occurs, and is by moving of goalposts made indistinguishable from alleged (but never once demonstrated) "evolution". Matter does not organize itself from chaos or from nothing This is true of planets, stars and galaxies as well. Physical laws of conservation are known to be inviolate, and yet according to the world's most famous physicists, "the laws of physics cease to apply" in the alleged kablooie that "began creation", supposedly all by itself. The alleged "Big Bang" is a proven false speculation on its own terms.

So we have that everything we observe, from life to remote galaxies down to the humblest subatomic particles, has no plausible theory for their existence without God. There is no secular or purely naturalistic theory that can even account for the possibility of their existence. According to all such theories, life and existence are utterly impossible, and yet media personalities and classroom flatterers routinely lie to use by telling us they have it all figured out and there is no God or at least no need for a God. What we call "science" is in reality one deus ex machina after another designed to prop up and patch in more facades into utterly failed theories. The bait and switch from philosophical speculation into pretending to be hard factual "science" became most widespread with the rise of Marxist educators like John Dewey.

Every detail of Creation and existence, down to the chirality of molecules, proves there is a Supreme Creator and completely debunks every theory of evolutionary or random creation.

The existence of the Earth, of its precise configuration necessary to sustain life, and the prophets and the Scriptures prove there is a God.

ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. (Alma 30:44)

I can go on for hours on many subjects and there are millions more testimonies of the reality of God according to the interest of the asker. These are just a few.

0

You must log in to answer this question.