How Science Suggests God May Have Created the Universe

vchal/shutterstock

The quest to understand the universe often parallels science and faith in their debate. Yet, what if science holds clues pointing toward a divine creator? Find out the three ways science has hinted at the existence of an intelligent hand behind the creation of the universe. 

The Fine-Tuned Universe Discovery

Fine-Tuned Universe Theory./Facebook

Scientists have made a mind-boggling discovery: the universe is like a finely tuned machine, with all its parts intricately working together to make life possible. This revelation suggests that a creator is intentionally involved in this balance. But that’s not all. 

The Four Fundamental Forces

Physics With Fazal/Facebook

There are four main forces in nature: gravity, electromagnetic forces, and two types of nuclear forces. These forces must be balanced, just like ingredients in a perfect recipe. If gravity were even slightly stronger or weaker, the formation of stars like our sun and, consequently, the existence of life would be impossible. This delicate balance further suggests a creator’s intentional design of the universe.

Earth’s Perfect Positioning

Ameya World School/Facebook

Earth rotates at the right speed to give us day and night, and it’s tilted at just the right angle to provide seasons. Astronomers call this the ‘Goldilocks zone’—it’s just right for liquid water to exist, which is essential for life. It’s almost as if someone meticulously adjusted everything to make it perfect for humans to thrive. 

The Atmospheric Precision

NASA Earth Observatory/Wikipedia

The atmosphere is another marvel. There is enough oxygen to breathe, but not so much that everything would catch fire easily. And there’s plenty of nitrogen to balance things out. Looking at all these factors is like a cosmic miracle, where countless factors have aligned perfectly to allow life to flourish. 

Implications Of A Fine-tuned Universe 

Jodi Childs/Facebook 

As a result of the precise balance and calibration of the universe, life points to an external intelligent or creator. However, skeptics propose the alternative multiverse theory, suggesting the universe is only one of many, and we simply exist in one capable of supporting life. The problem with that? 

The Problem With The Multiverse Theory 

Astrogeekz/Facebook

We can’t observe other universes, so designing experiments that could definitively prove or disprove the multiverse theory is difficult. The theory also doesn’t solve the fine-tuning problem; it merely pushes it back a level and then begs the question: What fine-tuned the multiverse generator itself? 

The Redshift and Cosmic Expansion Discovery

Sound of Science/Facebook 

This discovery shook up human understanding of the universe in a big way. And it started with one man’s mistake. Albert Einstein, arguably the most famous scientist ever, initially thought the universe was static like a frozen snapshot. He even added a constant to his equations to keep it that way. But then along came Georges Lemaître. 

An Expanding Universe 

Sheri Cooper/Facebook

Georges was a Belgian priest and astronomer who questioned Einstein’s stance. Edwin Hubble backed up his findings with more evidence that distant galaxies were zooming farther away, which caught Einstein’s attention. 

Einstein’s Visit to Hubble

Mount Wilson Observatory/Facebook

Then, in 1931, Einstein visited Hubble at Mount Wilson Observatory in California. When he saw and reviewed Hubble’s data on galaxies’ redshifts, he reportedly admitted that sticking to the idea of a static universe was his “biggest blunder.” 

Implications of a Finite Universe

Finite Theory of the Universe/Facebook

Hubble’s discovery lent strong support to the Big Bang Theory, suggesting a finite beginning to the universe and resonates with the concept of a Creator. If the universe is expanding outwards, it means it started from a point, a “birth moment,” which raises all sorts of intriguing questions about what caused it and why it seems so finely tuned for life to exist.

The Information in DNA Discovery 

Finite Theory of the Universe/Facebook

At the heart of molecular biology lies the discovery of DNA, which carries the genetic instructions for all living organisms. The structure of DNA reveals a complexity and information density that is often compared to computer code, leading to discussions about the origins of this information.

The Double Helix

Billion Photos/shutterstock

In 1953, two scientists named James Watson and Francis Crick figured out what DNA looks like. It is composed of two long strands of nucleotides twisted around each other. These strands are held together by base pairs to form a code that specifies the amino acid sequences of proteins, the life builders.

Complex Information and Intelligent Design

Piyaset/shutterstock

The complexity and specificity of genetic information in DNA is truly staggering. Unlike random sequences, the genetic code exhibits a high degree of order and functionality, akin to a computer program written by a skilled programmer. This level of complexity attests to the intelligence behind its design.

Complex Information and Intelligent Design

Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com

Bill Gates once remarked that DNA is a computer program that is far more advanced than any software. His comparison highlights that DNA’s complexity surpasses even the most advanced human-designed systems, suggesting that such complexity might arise from an intelligent source rather than random processes. 

Implications Of The Information In The DNA Discovery

Creation Confidence/Facebook

DNA’s precise coding and functionality are too sophisticated to have arisen purely by chance or through undirected evolutionary processes. The view suggests that the existence of DNA could be evidence of a higher intelligence, creator, and God. 

Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. Why no one wants to go a step further- based on the definition of GOD, that being: omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, the alpha and omega, the great I am, the ground of our being, etc. – thus making GOD you and I and everyone and everything and nothing or in other words we each help make GOD that which GOD is. Obviously since we believe we have intelligence, that intelligence is also a part of GOD’s intelligence, so obviously there is intelligence in the universe, and we “all” are a part of it or GOD. Or if you cannot stomach GOD for whatever reason I’m sure GOD won’t mind if you want to be content with, we are “all” a part of the universe or multiverse or whatever suits your fancy. We interact. No man is an island entire unto himself, we are each a part of the continent a piece of the main. Thus, we have been given directives to do unto others as we would have others do unto us and love our neighbors as ourselves since we are one in GOD. Please stop confusing GOD with religion and religion with GOD. As with our own bodies each part has to perform a given task if an identity is to exist as such. Have fun with where that takes you. Hopefully we won’t destroy ourselves in the process. Love keeps our world going around. LOVE.

    • And that is precisely how I see it. To personalize “God” is perhaps humanity’s greatest con or scam, concocted to manipulate large sections of it. That is the concept I refuse to believe in, but to ignore the intelligence of everything around us, from a blade of grass to the infinite our eyes can’t see, that would be the biggest and saddest blunder.
      Thank you James Glover. Your exposition unsettles even the staunchest atheist among us.

    • Refusal to recognize a “personal” God, defined for the purposes of this discussion as one with whom you can have a personal relationship, ignores other aspects of creation, namely every individual’s inherent spiritual need, the possession of innate qualities of love, care, mercy, affection, justice, etc., and the variety in color, taste, smell, sound, and touch that encourages the enjoyment of life. Many in today’s system of things REFUSE to express belief in a personal God because of their personal experiences and observations related to MEN/WOMEN who have acted in unjust ways in the name (authority) of God. This is understandably so. Others refuse to express belief in a personal God because of the accountability and obligation associated with it.

    • Since, there is recognition that God created all things, and we have read how intricate He was as he created all things. Are we to assume that He will not guide us in ‘goodness’ that we may live as He does? No manufacturer creates that the ignorant may destroy. Hence, they offer a manual for various reasons. Mankind is not in God, we were at one point, however, we have fallen from that state. If then we argue that we are in God then there is evil in God, I write foolishly for reason. Indeed, we were created to be live in love with each other, yet this is not the case. Is there error with the DNA code? No! Then where comes evil? Purified water is clean until it becomes contaminated. Indeed, as the Creator is God, He is outside of religion. However, as mankind worship Him then rightly religion. There are many and we would love for us to be correct as a human race, however, we are contaminated, hence, divergence from what is true. Therefore, since a perfect DNA, then a perfect manual, which means a perfect life, holiness as He .

  2. And that is precisely how I see it. To personalize “God” is perhaps humanity’s greatest con or scam, concocted to manipulate large sections of it. That is the concept I refuse to believe in, but to ignore the intelligence of everything around us, from a blade of grass to the infinite our eyes can’t see, that would be the biggest and saddest blunder.
    Thank you James Glover. Your exposition unsettles even the staunchest atheist among us.

  3. I’ve spent years thinking about this. I thought I was an atheist, but now I think there has to be something that drives all the incredible interconnectedness. Honestly, the existence of all things is ONE thing. All of us are together. How could anyone think that war, hate, and greed do not affect the whole of it?

    • How did you identify and eliminate all possible natural explaiantions first, before designation a god who, as an Atheist, you didn’t believe existed because there was no evidential reason to believe in any, as the cause, please?

  4. Sometimes, I think we are all so small that we can’t see how we fit into the whole of everything. I look at tiny ants and think we humans are so giant to them that they cannot see us except for a small portion.

  5. Thank you for a clear and coherent scientific summary of scientific evidence supporting faith in God. We each have to make our own decisions about this, because we cannot yield to another to make such a crucial conclusion for us. You have given a good explanation of the evidence from Edwin Hubble’s proof of the Big Bang creation of the universe. Some have objected to the argument about the precise value of the gravity constant: (a) if it were very slightly stronger, the universe would have collapsed early, and (b) if it were very slightly weaker, stars could not have formed and we would all be hydrogen. Even if we concede that gravity has the only value it could have, and could not be stronger or weaker, what about the explosive power of the Big Bang explosion? It had no such inherent value and could have been much stronger or weaker. Aha! For if it were slightly stronger, guess what: stars could not form. Or if the explosion of Lemaitre’s Primeval Atom were slightly weaker, the foal universe would have collapsed. The evidence stands.

    The same strength of logic applies to your example of the complexity of the DNA code. The combinations of code elements in DNA are on the order of exponential ten to the 1,366,000,000 power. No way this could get the right sequence for any living cell to have life by unguided chance.

    In my book Revelation Through Science (revised 2020), there is a frank discussion of these two arguments for fine-tuned states of nature to make nature ready for sentient life. In fact, drawn from astronomy, physics, geology, biology and even organic chemistry, there are indicated some 54 such examples of anthropic fine-tuning. Can it possibly be coincidence? Each of us must decide for ourselves.

    Jim Martin

  6. Surah Rahman is the 55th chapter of the Qur’an, 78 ayat in length, and it expands on the topic of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala rahma.
    The composition of Surah Rahman is entirely in saj’, a form of early Arabic poetry which is characterized by rhythm as well as rhyme.
    The most popular verse which is repeated 31 times throughout the 78 verses is the saying, fabi ayyi ala i rabbikuma tukazziban.
    We will expound on the meaning of this verse in detail.
    fabi ayyi ala i rabbikuma tukazziban in Arabic:
    فَبِأَىِّ ءَالَآءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ
    Transliteration: fabia ala i rabbikuma tukadziban
    English translation of this ayah:
    The meaning of fabi ala i rabbikuma tukazziban is,
    “Which, then, of your Lord’s blessings do you both deny?”

  7. Please can someone provide a link to where the existence of any god capable of creating anything, was definitively demonstrated a priori to it being inserted into the gap in our knowledhge and understanding of origins, please? How were all the possible natural ecplanations identified and eliminated first? If not, why should this article not be regarded as just another agument from ignorant incredulity combined with the god of the gaps and false dichotomy fallacies, please?

  8. I love the article! it is very stimulating.
    My question is on the DNA coding. As stated in the article, DNA is a brilliant written program likened to a computer program. My question is, does the program code include Evil(Live)? or is the evil deed code an error? Does the program have coded within it Free Will? Free will having DNA code within it (like a sub program) the choice to do evil things? Just curious.

Leave a Comment

Loading…

0