How does science point to creation? Many evolutionist state that science proves that God does not exist. Science and the practice of science was not used to prove the existence of the spiritual. It was meant to describe the natural world.
Since many scientist are atheist, they go about science with a bias and have as one of their assumption that God does not exist. Therefore they create their theorems with an initial or pre-conceived idea that taints their work.
In his book “Is Atheism Dead?” Eric Metaxas outlines five areas where recent studies show that science points to the existence of God. With the studies of Einstein, Friedmann, Lemaitre, and Hubble, the Steady State Theory has been replaced by the Big Bang Theory. Therefore with the date of the creation of the universe by the scientist to be 13.8 billion years ago, there is no longer time for the supposed random happenings that could take place over great periods of time.
Then there is the evidence of fine-tuning of the universe. In 1966 Carl Sagan stated that there where only two criteria for life to exist on a planet. The more we learned about the conditions necessary for life, the more criteria were found. The conditions mounted to high that is seemed that life existed anywhere was miraculous. Metaxas goes on to give many other examples of fine-tuning.
Metaxas takes a look into Abiogenesis, the belief that life came from non-life. As more and more studies have shown that life if much more complicated than we thought, the probability of Abiogenesis has been shown to be all but impossible. The complexity of the simplest cell shows the scientist that it could not come to existence by chance.
Recent discoveries in archeology have proved the existence of people and places referred to in the bible. Metaxas goes into detail describing some of these discoveries even as recent as 2020. His final chapters are devoted to understanding what horrors atheism has brought to the world, statements made by many atheistic scientist that attest to a higher power or designer. After many years of study some became agnostic or theist. Some even became Christians. He also covers Christians scientists and comes to the conclusion that atheism is incompatible with science.
Darwin did not have the science that we have today. Science has not been friendly to the atheist. As we have learned more and more, the atheist scientist has had to go through more and more gyrations to shore up their theories. By teaching them as absolutes instead as mere theories, they have gain some time for their beliefs, but as time goes on and science advances, many of their ideas will go by the wayside.
One can use many areas of science to disprove the theory of evolution. One in depth book covering 9 areas is “Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels”. (see reference page) Some information from this book below.
One interesting area is the ‘simple’ cell. DNA is in the cell. This is the information to be able to create another cell. The amount of information needed for this is enormous. The DNA system is very complex. Protein machines are needed to read the DNA, but the instructions to build the protein machines are encoded on the DNA. So the protein machines could not have proceeded the DNA because you need the DNA information to create the protein machines. The protein machines can not function without the information in the DNA. They would have had to simultaneously been created to function.
No cell can exist without this mechanism. Even the simplest cell. We see no evolutionary precursor to this process. Yet we are to believe that this occurred randomly.
Another necessary component of the cell is the ATP synthase. All living things need these ATP synthase motors. They produce the energy for living. This system is very complicated and there are no evolutionary precursor. Again we are to believe that this occurred randomly.
There are many mechanism that need to exist for a cell to exist. And all these mechanism would have to randomly happened all at the same time. It was thought that a single cell organism was simple and changed to support multi-celled organism. But science has shown that even the single cell organism is extremely complex and could not have randomly come into existence.
Why did Sir Fred Hoyle abandon atheism?
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence”. p. 97, reference 61.
The numbers are staggering.