Atheist Universe: Chapter 11
Initially Posted: January 29, 2007
Contents:
2. Origin of the Universe: Natural or Supernatural?
3. God of the Gaps: Does the Universe Show Evidence of Design?
4. The “Miracle” of Planetary Clockwork
5. The “Miracle” of Life on Earth
6. Can Genesis Be Reconciled with Modern Science?
7. “Miracles” of Christian Perception
9. Christian Fundamentalists and the “Danger” of Internet Porn
10. Was America Really Founded upon Christian Principles?
11. “Intelligent Design”: Christianity’s Newest Cult
11. “Intelligent Design”: Christianity’s Newest Cult:
Mills informs the reader that chapter 11 is meant to refute the “new” arguments for the fine-tuning of the universe and to show that the teachings of the ID movement contradict traditional Bible-based Christianity.
Mills asserts that Big Bang cosmology does not resemble the Genesis creation account. 1 First, Genesis 1:1 agrees perfectly with Big Bang cosmology—that the universe had a beginning. Second, Biblical creation accounts are not limited to Genesis. They span throughout the Bible. For example, Isaiah 42:5 says that God created the heavens and stretched them out. Similarly, Job 9:8, Isaiah 44:24, and Isaiah 45:12 all state that God created the heavens and stretched them out. The universe is continually expanding according to Big Bang cosmology. Further, Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, and Zechariah 12:1 use the Hebrew Qal active participle form of the verb natah. This form literally means “the stretcher out of them” (the heavens) and implies continual or ongoing stretching. 2 Read The Genesis Question, by Dr. Hugh Ross for more specific examples of how Genesis corresponds to the scientific record.
Mills claims that no one can posit that the heavens and the earth were created together as recorded in Genesis 1:1. However, there is no problem with Genesis 1:1, because it could be an introductory summary statement of God’s creative acts.
Mills presents two arguments for why the word “day” in Genesis 1 must refer to a 24 hour time period. First, Mills mentions that Moses, the alleged author of Genesis, directly links the six days of Creation to the length of humanity’s work week. Mills asserts that we are certainly not supposed to conclude that humans work weeks were six eons long. 3 However, Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer disagrees with Mills’ conclusion. Archer writes: “By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six ‘days,’ any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days.” 4 Dr. Ross notes, “Sometimes the Sabbath is a full year (cf. Leviticus 25:4).” 5
Second, Mills claims regarding the original Hebrew text of Genesis, the Hebrew word for “day” when used with the phrase “first day, second day, third day, it always refers to a literal 24-hour period throughout the Bible. 6 Dr. Ross responds to this argument, writing: “This argument can be challenged on several counts. For one, it is true only for passages describing days of human activity rather than days of divine activity. For another, nowhere else does the Bible have the occasion to enumerate sequential epochs. More important, the rules of Hebrew grammar do not require that yom must refer to twenty-four hours, even when attached to an ordinal. Hosea 6:2 prophesies that ‘after two days he [God] will revive us [Israel]; on the third day he will restore us.’ For centuries Bible commentators have noted that the ‘days’ in this passage (where the ordinal is used) refer to a year, years, a thousand years, or maybe more.” 7
Mill repeats his claim from an earlier chapter that no one ever doubted that “day” didn’t mean a 24-hour day in Genesis. However, I responded to this claim earlier, and demonstrated that it is historically inaccurate.
Mills also repeats his misrepresentations of creationist views regarding the Cambrian Explosion , and I addressed this issue earlier as well.
Mills claims that individuals who believe in the Anthropic Principle use “backward reasoning,” because they assume the universe was prepared ahead of time for organisms on Earth. Mills asks his readers to imagine discovering a hole with a very irregular shape, and then to imagine that the hole is filled with water, which freezes into ice. He asks what the odds are that the ice fit the hole’s shape so precisely to serve as an illustration of backward reasoning. Several points could be made in response. Mills posits that one concludes that the hole was intelligently designed due to its odd shape. One would be justified in this conclusion depending on the level of complexity. However, this is a poor analogy to the relationship between life’s existence and the fine-tuned constants in the universe. The odds that water would freeze into ice, which would then assume the shape of the hole, are extremely high, because humans know from experience that this is a common phenomenon. This does nothing to explain the apparent fine-tuning in the universe. Also, I wish Mills had explained which mechanism(s) account for what he calls the “constraints of the universe.” Mills argues, Earth life was forced to adapt to the already established conditions through evolution and natural selection. In fact, Mills even claims: “Evolution by natural selection provides a completely satisfying and comprehensive explanation to the fine-tuning between a life form’s needs and the environment in which it lives.” 8 The fine-tuning is only apparent, because some life forms manage to adapt to their environments, according to Mills. This ignores a vast quantity of data, however. For example, the universe must have just-right conditions to allow stable atoms to form, which in turn allow necessary elements to form. The universe must also be “just right” to allow the right type and number of stars to form, which will eventually produce planets after the stars die. These are just some factors among many others that must exist prior to the formation of Earth and the emergence of life on Earth. Read Dr. Hugh Ross’ book The Creator and the Cosmos. Third Expanded Edition (2001) for a more detailed discussion of this topic.
Mills also repeats his claims that every respected cosmologist on Earth does not believe the universe came into being out of nothing. 9 He also repeats his arguments regarding the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum vacuum fluctuations. 10 I responded to each of these arguments earlier.
Mills also discusses biochemist Michael Behe’s concept known as “irreducible complexity.” Mills notes that ID authors emphasize the extreme complexity of cellular life. 11 Mills notes that the DNA sequence in the simplest life form contains more information than a set of encyclopedias. 12 However, Mills objects, the earliest cells did not contain DNA, and that it is the result of billions of years of evolution. Yet, Mills does not present his theory of how DNA evolved gradually over billions of years. He just assumes that billions of years of macro-evolution eventually produced DNA. Also, I pointed out earlier that scientific research indicates that even the simplest microscopic life forms in earth’s history were very complex.
Mills claims that ID proponents often misuse the term “irreducible complexity,” and Mills assures his readers that natural selection can easily explain all apparent instances of irreducible complexity. 13 It would have been more beneficial if Mills had provided the definition that Behe devised. Behe defines an irreducibly complex system as: “…a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” 14
Mills says that nature is filled with biological systems that display all levels of complexity, ranging from extremely simple to very complex, and that every level is still available for direct observation today. However, he does not explain how the simpler systems gradually evolved into the more complex systems. In fact, Mills does not even provide any examples of either the simple or complex systems that he alludes to.
Mills also writes that the irreducible complexity concept: “assumes erroneously that all parts of a system must always have functioned expressly as they do today and that other uses and adaptive advantages were impossible during the life forms evolutionary development—all bogus assumptions.” 15 I think it is quite odd that Mills raises this objection, because Behe responds to this objection in Lee Strobel’s book The Case for a Creator—a book that Mills criticizes later in the chapter 11. According to Lee Strobel:
“Behe didn’t flinch. ‘The problem,’ he replied, ‘is that it’s not an argument against anything I’ve ever said. In my book, I explicitly point out that some of the components of biochemical machines can have other functions. But the issue remains—can you use numerous, slight, successive modifications to get from those other functions to where we are? ‘Some of this objection seems a bit silly. Could a component of a mousetrap function as a paperweight? Well, what do you need to be a paperweight? You need mass. You need to exist. An elephant, or my computer, or a stick can be a paperweight. But suppose you go buy a paperweight. What would it look like? Most of them are nondescript, roundish things. None of them look anything like a precursor to a mousetrap. Besides, look at what he’s doing: he’s starting from the finished product—the mousetrap—and disassembling it and moving a few things around to use them for other purposes. Again, that’s intelligent design!
The question for evolution is not whether you can take a mousetrap and use its parts for something else; it’s whether you can start with something else and make it into a mousetrap. The problem for evolutionists is to start with a less complex system and build a more complex system. Even if every component could theoretically have a useful function prior to its assembly into the mousetrap, you’d still have the problem of how the mousetrap becomes assembled….When people put together a mousetrap, they have the disassembled components in different drawers or something, and they grab one from each drawer and put it together. But in the cell, there’s nobody there to do that. In molecular machines, components have portions of their shape that are complementary to each other, so they connect with each other in the right way. A positive charge can attract a negative charge, and an oily region can attract another oily region. So if we use the mousetrap as an analogy, one end of the spring would have to have a certain shape or magnetism that just happened to attract and fit with another component of the trap. They’d all have to fit together that way until you had the whole trap assembled by itself.
In other words, if you just had the components themselves without the ability to bring the other pieces into position, you’d be far from having a functioning mousetrap. Nobody ever addresses this problem in the evolutionary literature.” 16
Mills also says the human appendix is harmful to our well-being. However, scientists have discovered that the appendix serves an important role in the human immune system. 17
Next, Mills criticizes Jonathan Wells’ book Icons of Evolution. Wells is a post-doctoral biologist who possesses Ph.D.s from Yale University and the University of California at Berkeley. Mills attacks Wells for denying that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. I have already addressed Mills’ claim that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form above in my critique of chapter 5. Mills claims that the genuine scientific community has not cited Wells’ “Icons” as the main evidence in favor of macro-evolution in fifty years. 18 If this is true, I am not sure why Mills used some of these “Icons” to make his case for macro-evolution. Wells addresses the "Icons" such as the peppered moths experiment, the Miller-Urey experiment, Archaeopteryx, and discussed bacterial resistance to antibiotics along with insect resistance to insecticides, to name some examples. Why did Mills use some of these "Icons" in order to make his case for Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution in chapter 5 if Mills knew that no one in the scientific community has cited these icons as the main evidence in favor of Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution?
Mills also attacks Dr. William Lane Craig’s mathematical arguments for a finite universe that he provides in Lee Strobel’s book The Case for a Creator. Mills criticizes Dr. Craig for claiming a mathematical equation using marbles as illustrations accurately reflects the empirical universe. 19 This criticism is problematic, because Dr. Craig even stated that the infinity represented in the mathematical equations was “…not descriptive of what can happen in the real world.” 20 Dr. Craig stated: “You see, the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual; it exists only in our minds. Working within certain rules, mathematicians can deal with infinite quantities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm. However—and here’s the point—it’s not descriptive of what can happen in the real world.” 21
Mills asserts that all cosmologists are forced to contemplate an infinite regress—“in the form of mass-energy or in the form of a god.” 22 Dr. Norman Geisler explains how an infinite regress can be avoided. Dr. Geisler writes:
“For in every infinite series of causes of existence at least one cause must be actually causing the existence of the world. But by definition in every infinite series of causes every cause is being caused by a prior cause. If this is so, then the one cause that is causing existence is also causing its own existence, since every cause in the series, including itself, is being caused. But it is impossible to cause one’s own existence, for a cause is ontologically prior to its effect, and something cannot actually be prior to itself. Therefore, an infinite series of causes of existence is impossible.
There are two ways to avoid this dilemma, both of which fall into the hands of the theists. First, the causality could come from outside the series so as to avoid a self-caused cause in the series. But in this case we either have another self-caused cause outside the series (which is impossible) or an uncaused Cause (which is theistic), or else we have another infinite series behind this cause (which is impossible). Or the atheist can claim that not every cause in the series is being caused. But in this case then at least one cause in the series is an uncaused Cause (which is theistic). No matter which way the atheist turns he runs either into impossibilities or into a First uncaused Cause (God).” 23
Mills also repeats his objection to God’s existence on the basis of natural disasters, which I addressed previously. He also repeats his argument against the existence of souls, and that the mind is just a product of the human brain. I have already presented data that challenge these assertions. Go here for more information about how near-death-experiences provide evidence for the mind’s existence independent of the brain.
Mills claims that Dr. Hugh Ross is an ID lecturer. 24 However, Dr. Ross is not officially associated with the ID movement, and he even criticizes the ID movement for not producing a scientific model, or framework.
Mills insinuates that Dr. Ross is dishonest when relaying scientific information. Mills writes, “NASA would certainly be interested in how Hugh Ross arrived at such a precise tally of stars and how he made his calculations.” 25 NASA apparently already knows how Dr. Ross derived his conclusion. According to a NASA-affiliated source, there are approximately 10 to the 21st power stars in the universe. Likewise, Dr. Ross also used the 10 to the 21st power value just before he made the comment Mills quotes. Further, Dr. Ross writes that there are “…about 10 billion trillion stars in the observable universe…” on page 95 of his book Creation as Science (2006).
Mills asserts that the Sun is the only star essential to life on Earth, and he asks how Dr. Ross knows that more or less stars would be devastating for life on Earth. 26 I seriously wonder if Mills comprehended Dr. Ross’ explanation for why this number of stars was so important—or if he even watched the entire segment of the DVD Journey Toward Creation that Mills quotes.
Just after the lines Mills quotes, Dr. Ross explains that if there were fewer stars, nuclear fusion would be too inefficient to allow heavy elements to form. More stars in the universe would cause only elements heavier than iron to form—no nitrogen, carbon, nor oxygen, would form. In other words, the life-essential elements that compose planets and carbon-based creatures, such as humans, would not even exist!
Mills quotes Dr. Ross as saying: “The position and the mass and the orbit of every solar system planet plays a crucial role in life on Planet Earth.” 27 However, Mills calls this total nonsense and asserts that “most of the other planets could disappear tomorrow with no deleterious effect on Earth whatever.” 28 However, this is far from accurate. Astronomy professor Guillermo Gonzalez writes: “Too many planets, however, will make a system less stable. The most habitable and measurable system will be one with the most planets allowed by stability constraints. It appears that Earth belongs to such a system.” 29 In other words, the number of planets in the solar system makes it the most life-friendly environment in terms of stability. Thus, contrary to Mills’ claim, the disappearance of the other planets would be disastrous for life on Earth.
Mills reports that Dr. Ross said the following on The John Ankerberg Show: “Only spiral galaxies can contain planets in stable orbits around their stars.” Mills accuses Dr. Ross of making up this information, and says that Dr. Ross “pulls ‘facts’ out of his sleeve like a Las Vegas magician.” 30 It would have been courteous for Mills to have contacted Dr. Ross and asked him to clarify his comments before calling Dr. Ross a liar. If Mills had performed more research in Dr. Ross’ books, he would have discovered that Dr. Ross explains why only spiral galaxies can contain planets in stable orbits. Dr. Ross writes: “Scientists now know that a star must be characterized by a certain minimum abundance of metals for planet formation to be possible in its vicinity. (Astronomers refer to all elements heavier than helium as metals.) Only 2 percent of the Milky Way Galaxy’s stars contain the necessary abundance of metals. The Milky Way Galaxy itself is exceptional in that it contains a high population of metal-rich stars. Most galaxies contain only a miniscule number of metal-rich stars or none at all.” 31
Dr. Ross also writes the following in The Creator and the Cosmos. Third Expanded Edition (2001): “In elliptical galaxies star formation ceases before the interstellar medium becomes enriched enough with heavy elements. For life, stellar systems need to form late enough that they can incorporate this heavy-element-enriched material.
The problem with large irregular galaxies is that they have active nuclei. These nuclei spew out life-destroying radiation and material. Meanwhile most small irregular galaxies have insufficient quantities of the heavy elements essential for life.” 32
Astronomy professor Guillermo Gonzalez agrees with Dr. Ross that our spiral galaxy is special. He writes: “As if our galaxy’s habitable zone weren’t exclusive enough, the broader universe looks even less inviting. About 98 percent of galaxies in the local universe are less luminous—and thus, in general, more metal-poor—than the Milky Way. So entire galaxies could be devoid of Earth-size terrestrial planets. In addition, stars in elliptical galaxies have less-ordered orbits, like bees flying around a hive minus a bee’s capacity to react to impending collisions. Therefore, they are most likely to visit their galaxy’s dangerous central regions. They’re also more likely to pass through interstellar clouds at disastrously high speeds (though such clouds are less common in elliptical galaxies). In many ways, ours is the optimal galaxy for life: a late-type, metal-rich, spiral galaxy with orderly orbits, and comparatively little danger between spiral arms.” 33
Mills makes two more charges of inaccuracy against Dr. Ross. Mills claims to quote Dr. Ross’ comments from when Dr. Ross was on The John Ankerberg Show, but Mills does not inform the reader which episode number nor air date for any of Dr. Ross’ statements. Given Mills’ tendency to accuse Dr. Ross of dishonesty, I suspect that Dr. Ross made valid points in the two other examples that Mills refers to.
Mills claims that ID apologists posit that Jupiter regularly protects Earth from collisions with other objects in space. 34 However, ID apologists are not alone in this view. See J. Lunine, “The Occurrence of Jovian Planets and the Habitability of Planetary Systems,” Publications of the National Academy of Sciences 98, no. 3 (2001): 809-814. See also G.W. Wetherill, “Possible Consequences of Absence of Jupiters in Planetary Systems,” Astrophysics and Space Science 212 (1994): 23-32. Mills mentions and acknowledges that Jupiter often intercepts space debris (i.e. asteroids) which shields Earth from more frequent impacts. 35
However, Mills claims that Jupiter can only block debris from one angle. Mills also asserts that Jupiter may attract debris toward Earth that would not enter the solar system otherwise. 36 However, Jupiter’s gravity actually more commonly directs comets out of the solar system rather than just attracting comets with its gravity. 37
Also, Mills suggests that Lee Strobel either misquoted Guillermo Gonzalez or Gonzalez made a mistake when Strobel quotes Gonzalez as claiming that Venus protects Earth from asteroid impacts. 38 Mills implies that Gonzalez said that Venus orbits between the asteroid belt and Earth on page 174 of Lee Strobel’s book The Case for a Creator. However, Gonzalez never stated that Venus orbited between Earth and the asteroid belt on page 174. He only said that Venus protects Earth from impacts as well. In his book The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, Gonzalez explains that “…the mere presence of other planets in the inner Solar System reduces the number of asteroids and comets hitting Earth, for the simple reason that an object that hits one of these other planets is no longer around to slam Earth. How much protection the other planets add depends on their combined surface areas and their proximity to Earth.” 39
Mills also accuses the other experts that Strobel interviews of committing factual and logical errors, but he assures the reader that he would not be able to include so many extensive quotations. 40
Amazingly in the concluding section of chapter 11 Mills writes that “If we are to believe the words of ID’s leaders and writers, then they have scientifically proven God’s existence.” 41
Endnotes:
1. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 214.
2. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How The Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God. Third Expanded Edition (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 24.
3. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 216.
4. Gleason L. Archer, “A Response to the Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science,” Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1986), 329.
5. Hugh Ross, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994), 59.
6. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 216.
7. Hugh Ross, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994), 46-47.
8. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 222.
9. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 231.
10. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 232-233.
11. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 223.
12. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 224.
13. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 225.
14. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: A TOUCHSTONE BOOK PUBLISHED BY SIMON & SCHUSTER, 1996), 39.
15. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 225.
16. Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 200-201. See also: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1831.
17. Hugh Ross, Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars (NAVPRESS, 2006), 170.
18. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 229.
19. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 236.
20. Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 103.
21. Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 103.
22. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 237-238.
23. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 366.
24. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 249.
25. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 250.
26. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 250.
27. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 251.
28. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 251.
29. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004), 115.
30. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 251.
31. Hugh Ross, Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars (NAVPRESS, 2006), 111.
32. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How The Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God. Third Expanded Edition (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 176-177.
33. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004), 167.
34. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 251.
35. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 252.
36. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 252.
37. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How The Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God. Third Expanded Edition (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 183.
38. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 252.
39. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004), 115.
40. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 252.
41. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 253.
Suggested Further Reading Material:
1. Blanchard, John. Does God Believe in Atheists? Auburn, MA: Evangelical Press, 2000.
2. Bocchino, Peter and Norman Geisler. Unshakable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions about the Christian Faith. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2001.
3. Corduan, Winfried. A Tapestry of Faiths: The Common Threads Between Christianity & World Religions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
4. Craig, William Lane and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
5. Geisler, Norman. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999.
6. Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, A Division of Good News Publishers, 2004.
7. Geisler, Norman L. Miracles and the Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical Miracles. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1992.
8. Geisler, Norman L. Signs and Wonders. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1988.
9. Gonzalez, Guillermo and Jay W. Richards.The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004.
10. Habermas, Gary R. and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004.
11. Habermas, Gary R. The Risen Jesus & Future Hope. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003.
12. Hart, Benjamin. Faith & Freedom: The Christian Roots of American Liberty. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1988.
13. Heeren, Fred. Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God. Revised Edition. Wheeling Illinois: Day Star Publications, 1997.
14. Hoyle, Fred. The Intelligent Universe. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983.
15. Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1952.
16. Limbaugh, David. Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003.
17. Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1987.
18. Rana, Fazale and Hugh Ross. Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005.
19. Ross, Hugh. Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars. Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS, 2006.
20. Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos. Third Expanded Edition. Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS, 2001.
21. Ross, Hugh. The Genesis Question: Scientific Advancements and the Accuracy of Genesis. Second Expanded Edition. Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS, 1998, 2001.
22. Samples, Kenneth Richard. Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2004.
23. Spetner, Lee. Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1997, 1998.
24. Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998.
25. Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. New Expanded Edition. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
26. Witherington III, Ben. What Have They Done With Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History—Why We Can Trust the Bible. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006.