The Anthropic Principle: The Universe Is Designed for Us by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.



The Anthropic Principle: The Universe Is Designed for Us

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The Anthropic Principles in cosmology states that the Universe as a whole appears to have been designed for humans to inhabit it. The existence of a Universe Designer still stands as the most logical explanation for its origin, and the naturalistic community cannot help but concede it.

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

The Anthropic Principle in secular cosmology is a recognition by scientists that the Universe appears to be just right for life, and specifically, humans.1 Stephen Battersby, writing in New Scientist, discusses the anthropic principle and our “Goldilocks universe,” asking, “Why does the universe have properties that are ‘just right’…?”2 In the words of Princeton professor emeritus and theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, “As we look into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.”3 Bottom line: the Universe appears to be designed for us to live in it.

Atheistic philosopher Paul Ricci summed up the Teleological Argument for the Existence of God well when he said, “[I]t’s true that everything designed has a designer…. ‘Everything designed has a designer’ is an analytically true statement.”4 There are an infinite number of examples of design that present themselves to us when we study the natural realm—a problem for Ricci and his atheistic colleagues, to be sure. While we typically examine evidences of design on Earth and our solar system, when we look at the design in the Universe as a whole, the number of evidences increases.

Naturalists: “The Universe Looks Designed!”

Consider the following points in addition to the many specific examples of design we see in the Universe. It is one thing for theists to provide positive evidences for the existence of design in the Universe, but it makes the job much simpler for theists when naturalists themselves admit evidences for design. A positive acknowledgement from hostile witnesses is powerful testimony to the truth of the theists’ position.

According to cosmologist Bernard Carr of Queen Mary University in London, when the evidence in the Universe is examined, a supernatural explanation is demanded. He warned cosmologists to accept the inevitable implications of the evidence: “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”5 The multiverse has, therefore, been latched onto by many naturalists to try to explain away the “difficulties” facing physicists without resorting to God. Among other issues with the multiverse idea: (1) belief in the multiverse is belief in unseen realms beyond the known, natural Universe—i.e., belief in the supernatural. How can a person be a “naturalist” and yet believe in a supernatural realm? (2)  there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of the multiverse.6 Theoretical physicist, faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Waterloo, Lee Smolin, said, “We had to invent the multiverse,”7 and according to Lawson Parker, writing in National Geographic, it was from our “imagination.”8 The use of our imagination to determine where we came from certainly sounds like today’s “science” is moving ever further into the realm of fiction.

What kind of “difficulties” are physicists encountering that are forcing them to conclude that something outside of the Universe exists, and therefore, that they need to “invent” the multiverse to avoid God? Many have articulated well the problem. Read on to see a great lesson by naturalists on the need for a supernatural Designer of the Universe.

According to Tim Folger, writing in Discover magazine, “The idea that the universe was made just for us—known as the anthropic principle—debuted in 1973.”9 Since then, the mountain of evidence supporting the principle has drastically grown in elevation. Consider the following examples:10

  • In a 2011 article, under the heading “Seven Questionable Arguments” for the multiverse, cosmologist George F.R. Ellis of the University of Cape Town, co-author with Stephen Hawking of the book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, discussed argument number four: “A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things…. I agree that the multiverse is a possible valid explanation for [fine tuning examples—JM]…; arguably, it is the only scientifically based option we have right now. But we have no hope of testing it observationally.”11 [Notice that the multiverse is “the only scientifically based option,” and yet “we have no hope of testing it observationally.” Doesn’t the inability to test observationally make the theory unscientific?]
  • By 2014, Ellis and Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University Joseph Silk went even further:

The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of nature, such as the fine-structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range that allows life to exist…. Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low value of the cosmological constant—known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than the value predicted by quantum field theory—is difficult to explain, for instance.12

  • John Rennie, the editor for Scientific American, noted, “The basic laws of physics work equally well forward or backward in time, yet we perceive time to move in one direction only—toward the future. Why?”13 Cosmologist and Professor of Physics at California Institute of Technology Sean Carroll, along the same lines, noted that “[i]f the observable universe were all that existed, it would be nearly impossible to account for the arrow of time in a natural way.”14 Apparently, according to naturalists, Something beyond the “observable universe” exists.
  • According to Smolin,

Everything we know suggests that the universe is unusual. It is flatter, smoother, larger and emptier than a “typical” universe predicted by the known laws of physics. If we reached into a hat filled with pieces of paper, each with the specifications of a possible universe written on it, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would get a universe anything like ours in one pick—or even a billion. The challenge that cosmologists face is to make sense of thisspecialness. One approach to this question is inflation—the hypothesis that the early universe went through a phase of exponentially fast expansion. At first, inflation seemed to do the trick. A simple version of the idea gave correct predictions for the spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. But a closer look shows that we have just moved the problem further back in time. To make inflation happen at all requires us to fine-tune the initial conditions of the universe.15

  • Tim Folger quotes cosmologist and Professor of Physics at Stanford University Andrei Linde in Discover magazine:

“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says. Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea…. Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse…. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non-religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life…. [Andrei Linde:] “And if we double the mass of the electron, life as we know it will disappear. If we change the strength of the interaction between protons and electrons, life will disappear. Why are there three space dimensions and one time dimension? If we had four space dimensions and one time dimension, then planetary systems would be unstable and our version of life would be impossible. If we had two space dimensions and one time dimension, we would not exist,” he says…. [I]f there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”16

  • Stuart Clark and Richard Webb, writing in New Scientist, said,

We can’t explain the numbers that rule the universe…the different strengths of weak, strong and electromagnetic forces, for example, or the masses of the particles it introduces…. Were any of them to have even marginally different values, the universe would look very different. The Higgs boson’s mass, for example, is just about the smallest it can be without the universe’s matter becoming unstable. Similar “fine-tuning” problems bedevil cosmology…. Why is the carbon atom structured so precisely as to allow enough carbon for life to exist in the universe.17

  • Theoretical physicist and professor at Columbia University Brian Greene, commenting on Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind’s thinking about the multiverse, said,

[The] multiverse is a highly controversial schema, and deservedly so. It not only recasts the landscape of reality, but shifts the scientific goal posts. Questions once deemed profoundly puzzling—why do nature’s numbers, from particle masses to force strengths to the energy suffusing space, have the particular values they do?—would be answered with a shrug…. Most physicists, string theorists among them, agree that the multiverse is an option of last resort….  Looking back, I’m gratified at how far we’ve come but disappointed that a connection to experiment continues to elude us.18

  • Mary-Jane Rubenstein, writing in New Scientist, said,

Here’s the dilemma: if the universe began with a quantum particle blipping into existence, inflating godlessly into space-time and a whole zoo of materials, then why is it so well suited for life? For medieval philosophers, the purported perfection of the universe was the key to proving the existence of God. The universe is so fit for intelligent life that it must be the product of a powerful, benevolent external deity. Or, as popular theology might put it today: all this can’t be an accident. Modern physics has also wrestled with this “fine-tuning problem,” and supplies its own answer. If only one universe exists, then it is strange to find it so hospitable to life, when nearly any other value for the gravitational or cosmological constants would have produced nothing at all. But if there is a “multiverse” of many universes, all with different constants, the problem vanishes: we’re here because we happen to be in one of the universes that works. No miracles, no plan, no creator.19

  • The eminent atheistic, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, Paul Davies, said, “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software...?”20 In a more extensive discourse on the subject in The New York Times, Davies said,

[W]here do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as “given”—imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth—and fixed forevermore.... Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are—they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality—the laws of physics—only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science. Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality.... Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith—namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws.21

In conclusion, Davies highlighted the fact that naturalists have a blind faith when assuming that the laws of science could create themselves free from an “external agency”: “[U]ntil science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.”22 Bottom line: there must be a rational origin of the laws of science, and there is no natural explanation for them.

In a 2014 interview with Scientific American, George Ellis gave a stinging response to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University, who argues in his book, A Universe from Nothing, that physics has ultimately answered the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Among other criticisms, Ellis said,

And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions.23

Quantum physicist Michael Brooks agreed with Ellis in his criticisms of Krauss’ book. Writing in New Scientist, he said, “[T]he laws of physics can’t be conjured from nothing.... Krauss contends that the multiverse makes the question of what determined our laws of nature ‘less significant.’ Truthfully, it just puts the question beyond science—for now, at least.”24 The laws of science are evidence of a supernatural Mind—a grand Law Writer.

  • In Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Richard Dawkins said concerning the possibility of intelligent design:

It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the Universe, a civilization evolved by, probably, some kind of Darwinian means, to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that, if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some kind of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe.25

So, according to Dawkins, when we look at our chemistry—our molecular biology—(1) there could be evidence of design there, and (2) that design would imply the existence of a designer—a direct admission of the validity of the Teleological Argument. Granted, Dawkins does not directly endorse God as that Designer. Instead, he irrationally postulates the existence of aliens.

Ultimately, since there is no evidence for the existence of aliens, there can hardly be any evidence for their establishing life on Earth. Such an idea can hardly be in keeping with the evolutionist’s own beliefs about the importance of direct observation and experiment in science. Such a theory does nothing but tacitly admit (1) the truth of the Law of Biogenesis—in nature, life comes only from life (in this case, aliens); and (2) the necessity of a creator/designer in the equation.

However, notice: since aliens are beings of nature, they too must be governed by the laws of nature. Stephen Hawking acknowledged that the laws of physics “are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe.”26 Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger submitted his belief that the “basic laws” of science “hold true in the most distant observed galaxy and in the cosmic microwave background, implying that these laws have been valid for over thirteen billion years.”27 In the interview with Stein, Dawkins went on to say concerning the supposed alien creators, “But that higher intelligence would, itself, had to have come about by some ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously.”28 So, the alien creators, according to Dawkins, have been strapped with the laws of nature as well. Thus, the problem of abiogenesis is merely shifted to the alien’s abode, where the question of the origin of life must still be answered.

Bottom line: life is evidence of design, and by implication, an intelligent designer. Writing in New Scientist, Dawkins admitted, “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.”29 Sadly, the atheist simply cannot bring himself to accept the clear cut, “obvious alternative” that is staring him in the face.

Notice: Physicists cannot help but acknowledge the evidence that undergirds the Teleological Argument for the existence of God. The Universe seems to have been perfectly designed—with detailed fine-tuning—just for us. Design demands a designer. Resorting to belief in the multiverse is a concession by naturalists that we have been right all along: there exists an “unseen realm.” But rather than concede God, naturalists invent the evidence-less, imaginary multiverse. Ironically, all the while, the multiverse is itself a supernatural option—albeit, one without any rules concerning how we should behave, making it attractive to many.

Naturalists: “The Design Around Us is Amazing—Let’s Copy It.”

One area of scientific study where scientists are, many times unconsciously but forcefully, admitting the presence of design in the Universe, is in the field of biomimetics, or biomimcry—as well as the related field known as bio-inspired design. Biomimicry is an attempt to engineer something—design something—using the natural world as the blue print. Engineers are becoming more and more aware of the fact that the world around us is already filled with fully functional, superior designs in comparison to what the engineering community has been able to develop to date.

The Web page for George Washington University’s Center for Biomimetics and Bioinspired Engineering admits, “[D]espite our seeming prowess in these component technologies, we find it hard to outperform Nature in this arena; Nature’s solutions are smarter, more energy-efficient, agile, adaptable, fault-tolerant, environmentally friendly and multifunctional. Thus, there is much that we as engineers can learn from Nature as we develop the next generation machines and technologies.”30

It would be difficult to better summarize the decisive evidence for design that is clearly evident to professional designers (engineers) when they look at the natural realm. This same mindset about nature’s design, however, is becoming widespread in the engineering community. So consequently, biomimicry is becoming a major engineering pursuit. The field of biomimicry is growing by leaps and bounds, with research centers being established all over the world, with their express purpose being to mimic the design of nature.

Some engineers are going even further. Realizing that nature’s designs are so impressive that many times we simply cannot mimic them, they are attempting instead to control nature to use it as they wish, rather than mimic it.31 Animals, for instance, possess amazing detection, tracking, and maneuvering capabilities which are far beyond the knowledge of today’s engineering minds, and likely will be for many decades, if not forever. An insect neurobiologist, John Hildebrand, from the University of Arizona in Tucson, admitted, “There’s a long history of trying to develop microrobots that could be sent out as autonomous devices, but I think many engineers have realised [sic] that they can’t improve on Mother Nature.”32 Of course, “Mother Nature” is not capable of designing anything, since “she” is mindless—but notice that the desire to personify nature and give it design abilities is telling. While mindless nature has no ability to design anything, the Chief Engineer, the God of the Bible, on the other hand, can be counted on to have the best possible engineering designs. Who, after all, could out-design the Grand Designer? In spite of the deterioration of the world and the entrance of disease and mutations into the created order, after several millennia, His designs still stand out as the best—unsurpassed by human wisdom.

Do not miss the implication of practicing biomimicry and autonomous biological control. They are a tacit concession by the scientific community that nature exhibits design. Engineers are the designers of the scientific community. When we engage in biomimicry, we are, whether consciously or not, endorsing the concept that there is design in nature. It would be totally senseless to try to design something useful by mimicking something that was random and chaotic. For the highly educated, brilliant designers of the scientific community to copy nature, proves that nature must be much more than the product of random chance and accidents.33

Design Without a Designer?

Famous skeptic and science writer Michael Shermer, who has a monthly column in Scientific American, admitted that “we perceive nature to be intelligently designed.”34 To most people, the preponderance of evidence makes that design conclusion obvious. Shermer said, “Since the most common reason people give for why they believe in God is the good design of the world, Intelligent Design creationists are tapping into the intuitive understanding most people hold about life and the universe.”35 The acknowledgement of universal design is so widespread that well-known British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins even admitted, “It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to…find [Darwinism] hard to believe.”36 Psychologist Paul Bloom of Yale University and University of Pennsylvania acknowledged, “There is by now a large body of research suggesting that humans are natural-born creationists. When we see nonrandom structure and design, we assume that it was created by an intelligent being.”37 We can’t help it, of course; as rational beings we must concede that the available evidence indicates that “nonrandom structure and design” are, without exception, the products of a designer.

With that in mind, a casual perusal of nearly any article by evolutionary biologists that discusses the complexity of various species reveals that they cannot help but intuitively acknowledge a designer. Such writings are riddled with the term “design,” apparently without the naturalistic writers following out the implications of that term. Phrases like, “This feature of the salamander is designed to do this,” are common place. Is it not true that the moment one acknowledges the existence of design, he is admitting the existence of a designer at some point—just as acknowledging a poem implies the existence of a poet? We simply cannot escape the evidence for design in nature and the reasoning ability that God has put within us that presses us to acknowledge His existence, ensuring that those who wish to find Him will (Acts 17:26-28).

Some atheists have apparently noticed the tendency of naturalists to use such terminology. So, rather than try to rectify atheistic terminology, they embrace it and simply try to redefine the word “design.” Kenneth Miller is an evolutionary biologist at Brown University and co-author of the popular Prentice Hall high school biology textbook that is used extensively in the United States. In his 2008 book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, he admits that structural and molecular biologists, as they study the natural order, routinely mention the presence of design in their explorations. He, himself, though a naturalist, admits that the human body shows evidence of design, pointing out examples like the design of the ball and socket joints of the human hips and shoulders, and the “s” curve of the human spine that allows us to walk upright. In spite of such admissions, he irrationally claims that they should not be considered to be self-defeating for naturalists. According to Miller, the evidence for design in nature should be embraced. In an article published by Brown University, he said, “There is, indeed, a design to life—an evolutionary design.”38 Merriam-Webster defines an oxymoron as “a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (such as cruel kindness).”39 Another example: “naturalistic evolutionary design.”

If there is a painting, there must have been a painter. If there is a fingerprint, there must have been a finger that made it. If there is a building, there must have been a builder. If there is an engine, there must have been an engineer. If there is a creation of some sort, there must have been a creator for it. And if there is design, there must have been a…. If a person completes that sentence with any other word besides “designer,” is he not being the epitome of irrational? While we understand Miller’s dilemma as a naturalist and his desire to find a way to dismiss the incessant, forceful, ironic admissions of design by his naturalistic colleagues, he must attempt to do so through some other avenue besides merely attempting to redefine the word “design” in such a way that it does not require intent and purpose—a mind.

The silliness of irrationally postulating that the clearly designed Universe could have designed itself through evolution has not been lost to many in the engineering community. Typically, in the first semester of engineering school, an introductory course presents broad concepts about engineering. Students may learn the basic differences in the engineering fields (e.g., civil, electrical, mechanical, chemical, structural, etc.). They may spend some time considering ethical dilemmas that engineers have often faced in their careers. First-year students also usually give consideration to the design process. Even in its basic form, the design process proves to be very complex, even before considering the specialized scientific knowledge required to design a given item.

Many steps are necessary in order to get a product to the public. Consider one introductory engineering textbook’s template for the design process:40

1. Problem symptom or expression; definition of product need; marketing information

2. Problem definition, including statement of desired outcome

3. Conceptual design and evaluation; feasibility study

4. Design analysis; codes/standards review; physical and analytical models

5. Synthesis of alternative solutions (back to design analysis for iterations)

6. Decision (selection of one alternative)

7. Prototype production; testing and evaluation (back to design analysis for more iterations)

8. Production drawings; instruction manuals

9. Material specification; process and equipment selection; safety review

10. Pilot production

11. Production

12. Inspection and quality assurance

13. Packaging; marketing and sales literature

14. Product

The design process is unquestionably lengthy, technical, complex, and calculated. To claim that an efficient design could be developed without a designer is insulting to the engineering community. Where there is design—complexity, purpose, planning, intent—there is a designer.


Truly, the Universe is replete with decisive evidences of design. So much so, that even atheists cannot help but concede that truth. It is noteworthy that leading naturalists are unwilling to suggest that the laws of nature could create themselves.

  • Physicists know there must be a supernatural origin for physics laws.41

Similarly, more and more leading scientists are acknowledging that the existence of life is no accident either.

  • Biologists know there must be an intelligence behind it.42
  • Engineers are so awed by the clear-cut evidences for design on the Earth that they have developed entire centers devoted to biomimicry—copying the designs that are evident in nature, effectively plagiarizing the work of God when they fail to give Him due credit as the Chief Engineer.
  • Cosmologists gush with incredulity when they see the perfection of the created order as well, knowing that the “fine-tuning”43 that is evident in the Universe seems to have resulted in it being “custom tailored”44 for humans.

But how can there be “fine-tuning” if no One exists to tune in the first place? How can the Universe be “custom tailored,” and yet there be no Tailor? The Anthropic Principle—defined by cosmologists—is a blatant admission by the naturalistic community that theists have been right all along: the Universe is replete with evidences of design. If one is to be rational—drawing appropriate conclusions from the evidence—he must recognize that there are implications to realizing that the Universe is finely tuned and tailor made. The design in the Universe demands the existence of a Universal Designer and, further, the Universe was designed, specifically, with humans in mind.


1 Robert Lamb (2010), “What Is the Anthropic Principle?” HowStuffWorks, https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/anthropic-principle.htm.

2 Stephen Battersby (2006), “Top 10: Weirdest Cosmology Theories,” New Scientist, August 9.

3 Freeman J. Dyson (1971), “Energy in the Universe,” Scientific American, 224[3]:59.

4 Paul Ricci (1986), Fundamentals of Critical Thinking (Lexington, MA: Ginn Press), p. 190.

5 As quoted in Tim Folger (2008), “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory,” DiscoverMagazine.com, November 10, http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator.

6 cf. Jeff Miller (2017), “7 Reasons the Multiverse Is Not a Valid Alternative to God [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 37[4]:38-47, http://apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/37_4/1704w.pdf.

7 Lee Smolin (2015), “You Think There’s a Multiverse? Get Real,” New Scientist, 225[3004]:25, January 17.

8 Lawson Parker (2014), “Cosmic Questions,” National Geographic, 225[4], April, center tearout.

9 Folger, emp. added.

10 Much of the following material appeared also in Jeff Miller (2017), “Atheists’ Design Admissions,” Reason & Revelation, 37[12]:134-143, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1261.

11 George F.R. Ellis (2011), “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?” Scientific American, 305[2]:42.

12 George Ellis and Joe Silk (2014), “Defend the Integrity of Physics,” Nature, 516[7531]:322, December, emp. added.

13 “Editor’s Note” in Sean M. Carroll (2008), “The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow,” Scientific American, 298[6]:48, June.

14 Sean M. Carroll (2008), “The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow,” Scientific American, 298[6]:57, June.

15 Smolin, p. 24, emp. added.

16 Folger, emp. added.

17 Stuart Clark and Richard Webb (2016), “Six Principles/Six Problems/Six Solutions,” New Scientist, 231[3092]:33, emp. added.

18 Brian Greene (2015), “Why String Theory Still Offers Hope We Can Unify Physics,” Smithsonian Magazine, January, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/?no-ist, emp. added.

19 Mary-Jane Rubenstein (2015), “God vs. the Multiverse,” New Scientist, 228[3052/3053]:64, December 19/26, emp. added.

20 Paul Davies (1999), “Life Force,” New Scientist on-line, 163[2204]:26-30, September 18.

21 Paul Davies (2007), “Taking Science on Faith,” The New York Times, November 24, emp. added, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=0.

22 Ibid.

23 As quoted in John Horgan (2014), “Physicist George Ellis Knocks Physicists for Knocking Philosophy, Falsification, Free Will,” Scientific American Blog Network, July 22, emp. added, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will/.

24 Michael Brooks (2012), “The Paradox of Nothing,” New Scientist, 213[2847]:46, January 11, emp. added.

25 Ben Stein and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media), emp. added.

26 “Curiosity…,” emp. added.

27 Victor J. Stenger (2007), God: The Failed Hypothesis (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books), p. 115.

28 Stein and Miller, emp. added.

29 Richard Dawkins (1982), “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, 94:130, April 15, emp. added.

30 “Center for Biomimetics and Bioinspired Engineering: COBRE” (2012), George Washington University, emp. added, http://cobre.seas.gwu.edu/.

31 Jeff Miller (2011), “Autonomous Control of Creation,” Reason & Revelation, 31[12]:129-131.

32 J. Marshall (2008), “The Cyborg Animal Spies Hatching in the Lab,” New Scientist, 2646:41, March 6.

33 For specific examples of biomimicry and bio-inspired engineering, see http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&topic=66.

34 Michael Shermer (2007), Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (New York, NY: Henry Holt), Kindle edition, p. 61.

35 Ibid. pp. 39-40.

36 Richard Dawkins (1986), The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton), p. xi.

37 Paul Bloom (2009), “In Science We Trust: Beliefs About the Natural World that are Present in Infancy Influence People’s Response to Evolutionary Theory,” Natural History Magazine, 118[4]:18-19.

38 As quoted in: Brown University (2008), “There is ‘Design’ in Nature, Biologist Argues,” ScienceDaily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm.

39 “Oxymoron” (2017), Merriam-Webster On-line, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron/.

40 cf. Introduction to Engineering at Auburn University: Manufacturing—Industrial and Systems Engineering (2004), (Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing), pp. 10,32.

41 cf. Miller, 2017.

42 cf. Jeff Miller (2013), “Directed Panspermia and Little, Green (Non-Existent) Men from Outer Space,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4620&topic=93.

43 Folger; Clark and Webb, p. 33; Rubenstein, p. 64.

44 Folger.

The Aesthetic Argument for the Existence of God by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


 The Aesthetic Argument for the Existence of God

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The Aesthetic Argument for God’s existence is sometimes considered to fall under the design argument for God’s existence (the Teleological Argument). The argument highlights the fact that beauty exists, and more specifically, the ability to appreciate beauty exists. Atheism cannot adequately explain this appreciation in the diverse forms it is found, because that appreciation, by-in-large, has no evolutionary advantage. So, the argument says that the existence of beauty proves that a God must exist Who cares for His Creation and wishes to give us joy and pleasure.

Charles Darwin recognized the Aesthetic Argument as a threat to evolutionary theory. In the Origin of Species, he said, “Some authors believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator…or for the sake of mere variety….  Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”1 Why? Because naturalistic evolution cannot explain why something would become beautiful for the sole benefit of others. According to Darwin, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species…. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species.”2 Evolution is “survival of the fittest” and “the strong survive.” It is the selfish, bloody battle of the strong for survival. It is not about benefitting others. So if naturalistic evolution (i.e., atheism) is true, evolving a trait must have a selfish benefit—not for the benefit of others.

So Darwin conceded, “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”3 In the same breath, however, he made a critical admission: “I fully admit that many structures are of no direct use to their possessors.”4 In other words, contrary to evolutionary predictions, “many structures” are possessed by creatures which are not useful at all to them! His response to the “problem” of beauty was to blindly conjecture that beautiful features must have just accidentally happened or perhaps were useful to a creature in some way at some point in the past, though not today.

Atheists today seem to acknowledge that Darwin’s response to the Aesthetic Argument was not satisfactory. They often respond to the beauty “problem” by claiming that beauty evolved accidentally in various creatures and then remained in those creatures because it helped them personally in getting mates—sexual selection. Those beautiful creatures would tend to reproduce more often, keeping the “beautiful” genes “alive.” Darwin, however, disagreed with this reasoning. He said, “The effects of sexual selection, when displayed in beauty to charm the females, can be called useful only in rather a forced sense…. [M]any structures now have no direct relation to the habits of life of each species.”5 In other words, Darwin recognized that, while sexual selection might help explain some cases of beauty, it does not even nearly explain all of the examples of beauty we see in the animal kingdom. And that admission highlights the fact that atheists still have not adequately answered the Aesthetic Argument.

Besides that fact, consider: sexual selection attempts to explain why beautiful animals would tend to “stick around,” but should not the opposite also be true? Should not the “ugly” animals have died out since they were less “pleasing to the eyes”? Why isn’t the animal kingdom more beautiful all around, after “millions of years” of tweaking? According to the fossil record, many “ugly” creatures have existed since they originally came onto the scene and have not changed—in many cases, over “millions of years,” according to the evolutionary time line. They have not changed, and yet they have not died out, as evolution would predict they should. Bible believers can explain why “ugly” things would exist (e.g., the effects of sin, Genesis 3:18; on-going genetic entropy as a consequence of being banished from the Tree of Life, Genesis 3:22-24). But would not evolution predict much more beauty in the animal kingdom if sexual selection is the powerful, beauty-generating mechanism it is espoused to be?

Further, keep in mind that sexual selection cannot work until beauty exists in the first place. Darwin was not able to provide a mechanism through which an animal would “grow” a new trait that would make it beautiful. Random mutations, for example, cannot generate new genetic information—and new genetic information is necessary to explain beauty where there once was no beauty. In other words, even if his response to the Aesthetic Argument could explain why beauty exists in the animal kingdom, he did not explain how evolution could create beauty in the first place. He attempted to explain how beauty would be in harmony with “survival of the fittest,” but he did not explain the arrival of the fittest in the first place. Although we are now some 150 years removed from Darwin, evolutionists still have no answer to that pivotal question.6

Also notice that modern atheists only attempt to respond to one “finger” of the Aesthetic Argument—namely why some of the beautiful animals exist. Sexual selection does not adequately explain why an orchestra playing Johann Pachelbel’s Canon in D Major is so beautiful that it can create an emotional response; why certain things that are not inherently good for you (and are sometimes even bad for you) taste good or smell good; why some things feel good—again, even when they are not always beneficial to you; why looking at a sunrise, waterfall, or ocean can give us such pleasure. Such examples of beauty highlight a more fundamental component of the Aesthetic Argument. Atheists scramble to try to explain why various creatures are beautiful, but the underlying question is, why do we perceive something as beautiful in the first place? Even if a beautiful trait could accidentally evolve in one creature, another creature, simultaneously, must also evolve an appreciation of that beauty. Even if natural selection could adequately explain why something beautiful tends to survive, it does not explain why we would see that thing as beautiful in the first place. Though “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and therefore everyone differs somewhat on what constitutes “beauty,” nevertheless, everyone possesses the inbuilt faculty that causes them to conceptualize the characteristic of beauty.

Why does beauty exist? Because an omnibenevolent God exists Who wants to give His children good things, as any decent parent would; Who wants humans to experience joy and pleasure. So, He has “made everything beautiful in its time” (Ecclesiastes 3:11)—things “pleasant for the eyes” (Ecclesiastes 11:7); people that have a “pleasant voice and can play well on an instrument” (Ezekiel 33:32); things which are “sweet to your taste” (Proverbs 24:13) and “give a good smell” (Song of Solomon 2:13); things that make a “joyful sound” (Psalm 89:15). “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him!” (Psalm 34:8).


1 Charles Darwin (1998), The Origin of Species (New York: Grammercy), p. 146.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid., emp. added.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., emp. added.

6 Jeff Miller (2013), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), revised edition.


Telling People What to Think by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Telling People What to Think

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Dan Barker, the ex-preacher who deconverted to atheism, is most famous for his book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. In this treatise against God and religion, Barker discussed a book that he wrote for children that contained these words: “No one can tell you what to think. Not your teachers. Not your parents. Not your minister, priest, or rabbi. Not your friends or relatives. Not this book. You are the boss of your own mind. If you have used your own mind to find out what is true, then you should be proud! Your thoughts are free!” (1992, p. 47). Noble sentiments indeed!

But, as one digs deeper into Barker’s book, it quickly becomes clear that those sentiments do not find a willing practitioner in the person of Dan Barker. In his chapter on prayer, Barker wrote:

Don’t ask Christians if they think prayer is effective. They will think up some kind of answer that makes sense to them only. Don’t ask them, tell them: “You know that prayer doesn’t work. You know you are fooling yourself with magical conceit.” No matter how they reply, they will know in their heart of hearts that you are right (1992, p. 109, emp. in orig.).

From Barker’s statement about what should be “told” to those who believe in prayer, it is easy to see that he does not necessarily believe his previous statement that “no one can tell you what to think,” or that a person should use his own mind “to find out what is true.” In fact, what Barker is really trying to say is that a person should only think for himself if such thinking will lead him to believe that there is no God, or that prayer does not work, or that all religion is nonsense. If thinking for himself leads a person to believe in the efficacy of prayer or the existence of God, then that person should be “told” what to believe.

In truth, the Bible demands that each person weigh the evidence for himself or herself. First Thessalonians 5:21 states: “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” Among those things that should be tested are the writings of skeptics like Barker. When blatant inconsistencies pepper their pages like so many spots on a Dalmatian, then those writings should not be “held fast.”


Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).


"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" The Betrayal Of Jesus (14:43-52) by Mark Copeland








The Betrayal Of Jesus (14:43-52) 

1. Certainly one of the saddest moments in the life of Jesus was His betrayal by Judas...
   a. One of Jesus’ closest disciples, even one of His twelve apostles - Mk 14:43-46
   b. Followed by being abandoned by the rest of the apostles - Mk  14:47-50
   c. And possibly Mark; many think he was the young man that fled naked - Mk 14:51-52

2. But our focus is on Judas:  What led him to betray his Lord and
   Savior?  How could one who had been with Jesus...
   a. Seen His miracles, heard His teachings
   b. Betray Him with a kiss?

3. And what about us, who claim to be Jesus’ disciples today...?
   a. Could we be guilty of betraying Jesus in some way?
   b. Are there things that misled Judas that could have a similar effect on us?

[What might we learn from "The Betrayal Of Jesus"?  Lest we follow the
same path of Judas, let’s reflect for a few moments on what we can glean
from the Scriptures...]


      1. As already mentioned, he was one of the apostles - Mk 3:14-19
      2. He was among those whom Jesus loved - cf. Jn 13:1
      3. Yet as prophesied, Jesus was betrayed by "a familiar friend" - Ps 41:9

      1. Just being His disciples is no assurance we could not betray Him
      2. Like several of the churches in Asia Minor, we could...
         a. Leave our first love - Re 2:4-5
         b. Begin to tolerate false doctrine - Re 2:14-16
         c. Permit false teachers to spread their doctrines - Re 2:20
         d. Fail to perfect our works, and not be watchful - Re 3:1-3
         e. Become lukewarm - Re 3:15-16
      3. Yes, we can betray Jesus by denying Him who bought us - cf. 2Pe  2:1

[Therefore we need to heed Jesus’ admonition to be "faithful unto death"
(Re 2:10), and not assume that close proximity to Jesus in the past
guarantees faithfulness in the future.]


      1. He often pilfered from the money box of the disciples - Jn 12:4-6
      2. The opportunity to make some money led him to betray Jesus - Mt 26:14-16

      1. The deceitfulness of riches can render us unfruitful - Mk 4:19
      2. The desire for riches and the love of money can lead us to
         stray from the faith and drown in destruction and perdition - 1Ti 6:9-10
      3. The Laodiceans’ preoccupation with wealth made them lukewarm - Re 3:16-17

[Could we be guilty of betraying Jesus by our desire for riches, letting
such things take precedent over our service to God and His church?]


      1. He could have pointed...perhaps he sought to soften the blow of betrayal - Mk 14:44-45
      2. Jesus noted the obvious contradiction - Lk 22:48

      1. Many people are very emotional in their religion
         a. As displayed in their worship
         b. Believing it to be evidence of being "Spirit-filled"
      2. Yet emotions alone are not a reliable guide
         a. They can easily mislead us - cf. Pr 16:25; Jer 10:23; 17:9
         b. They are often present in the unstable believer - cf. Mk 4:16-17
      3. This is not to discount the place and value of emotions
         a. We are to love God with all our heart and with all our mind - Mt 22:37-38
         b. The Spirit does produce fruit in our lives that affects our emotions - Ga 5:22-23
         c. But we must keep them in the proper order:
            1) Our emotions must come from faith, not faith coming from emotions
            2) Otherwise we are led by emotionalism, not faith
      4. True faith comes from the Word of God - Ro 10:17; Jn 20:30-31

[If we believe that displays of affection in our religion can make up
for our failure to heed God’s Word, we deceive ourselves and betray Jesus in the process!]


      1. He evidently didn’t think Jesus would be condemned - Mt 27:3-4
      2. This has prompted some to think that Judas was motivated by more than money
         a. That perhaps his betrayal would force Jesus to act, show His true power
         b. That in such a way it would demonstrate who Jesus truly was

      1. Thinking our service is acceptable, when it is not - Mt 7:21-23
      2. Thinking we can improve on God’s way, when His ways may not be ours - Isa 55:8-9
      3. We need to head the Preacher’s advice - cf. Ecc 5:1-2
         a. Come to hear and do what He says
         b. Not presume to know what pleases God and offer what we think is best

[In our zeal, we may be guilty of acting based on mistaken knowledge
(cf. Ro 10:1-3).  Dare we possibly betray Jesus by presuming we know
what is according to His will and plan?]


      1. He was overcome with grief - cf. Mt 27:3
      2. He took the wrong course of action by hanging himself - cf. Mt 27:5

      1. There are two kinds of sorrow - 2Co 7:10
         a. Sorrow of the world that produces death
         b. Godly sorrow that produces repentance
         c. The first sorrow is preoccupied with self; the second is
            sorrow for sinning against God
      2. It is natural to be sorrowful for our sins
         a. But we should not wallow in our grief
         b. But repent, as did Peter who denied Christ
      3. Paul is another example of one who did not let sins of the past
         hinder service in the present
         a. He focused on God’s grace which gave him another chance - 1Co 15:9-10
         b. He directed his attention on striving for the upward call of God - Php 3:12-14


1. While Jesus was betrayed by all these things, let’s not forget the influence of Satan...
   a. Satan used Judas to betray Jesus - Lk 22:3-4
   b. Satan put it in Judas’ heart to betray Jesus - Jn 13:2
   c. For this reason Jesus referred to Judas as "a devil" - Jn 6:70-71

2. Yet how did Satan influence Judas?  By some of the very things we’ve noticed...
   a. Through his love of money
   b. Through his emotionalism
   c. Through his mistaken ideas
   d. Through his preoccupation with self
   -- Even Peter was influenced by Satan through some of these things (cf. Mt 16:23)

And so while we may decry the treachery of Judas, we should humbly learn
from his mistakes, taking to heart the words of Peter:

   "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks
   about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.  Resist
   him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings
   are experienced by your brotherhood in the world." - 1Pe 5:9-10
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker


Overcoming Adversity by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman



Overcoming Adversity

Adversity. Overcoming

Some of the world’s greatest men and women have been saddled with disabilities and adversities but have managed to overcome them. I’m not sure of the origin of this piece, but it expresses this thought well.

Cripple him, and you have a Sir Walter Scott. Lock him in a prison cell, and you have a John Bunyan. Bury him in the snows of Valley Forge, and you have a George Washington. Raise him in abject poverty, and you have an Abraham Lincoln.

Subject him to bitter religious prejudice, and you have a Benjamin Disraeli. Strike him down with infantile paralysis, and he becomes a Franklin D. Roosevelt. Burn him so severely in a schoolhouse fire that the doctors say he will never walk again, and you have a Glenn Cunningham, who set a world’s record in 1934 for running a mile in 4 minutes, 6.7 seconds.

Deafen a genius composer, and you have a Ludwig van Beethoven. Have him or her born black in a society filled with racial discrimination, and you have a Booker T. Washington, a Harriet Tubman, a Marian Anderson, or a George Washington Carver.

Make him the first child to survive in a poor Italian family of eighteen children, and you have an Enrico Caruso. Have him born of parents who survived a Nazi concentration camp, paralyze him from the waist down when he is four, and you have an incomparable concert violinist, Itzhak Perlman. Call him a slow learner, “retarded,” and write him off as uneducable, and you have an Albert Einstein.

I believe that God has placed within humankind seeds of strength, resilience, and fortitude. We can tap into an indomitable spirit to overcome adversity.

For Bible believers there are some keys to help us cope when life is hard. When the challenges seem insurmountable. And when we not sure where to turn.

(1) Live in God’s Presence. James said, “Draw near to God and he will draw near to you.” Jesus promised “I am with you always even to the end of the world. Mt 28:29.

When we suffer adversity, we can know that we are in the presence of God. What a great encouragement, comfort and consolation.

One man said, where was God when my son died?” The answer is: The same place he was when His son died. If you feel forsaken, Jesus knows how you feel. God is not a spectator of our pain, we are in His presence.

(2) Learn from God’s Promises. The Psalmist affirmed that God would be with us. That he is “our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble.” God promises help. Comfort. Hope. He says, “I care. And I will care for you.” (I Pet. 5:7). He feels our pain. And will supply our every need.

(3) Lean on God’s Power. When Sennacherib, king of Assyria invaded Judah, the king stood up and said. “Be strong and courageous; do not be afraid nor dismayed before the king of Assyria, nor before all the multitude that is with him; for there are more with us than with him. 8 With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God, to help us and to fight our battles.” And the people were strengthened by the words of Hezekiah king of Judah” (2 Chron 32:7-8).

Finite strength is undependable and expendable, but God’s infinite power is sufficient for every need. Indeed we are “kept by the power of God” (1 Pet 1:5)

(4) Look For God’s Purpose. God’s purpose is not to make you miserable. Paul said to “rejoice in the Lord” God does not send pain, problems and pressures. God is the giver of good gifts. (Jas. 1:18)

Why does adversity strike? Maybe it is because of the evil of other people. Sometimes it is the result of living in a natural world that is filled with sin, suffering and separation. It could be through our own poor choices (Gal. 6:7-8) Or maybe the Devil is trying to trap us (1 Pet. 5:8).

So what is God’s Purpose for me in adversity? To walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor 5:7) To Use adversity to make me stronger (Jas 1:2-3) To focus on the eternal plan in Jesus. (Eph. 3:11) To claim victory through his love, grace and mercy. (Rom 8:30-31).

We all will suffer adversity in this life. Sometimes extreme tragedy will befall us. Yet, whatever the trial or trouble, there is help and hope. There is God.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

INSIGHT INTO BIBLE PROPHECY #71 Did Jesus Use the Wrong Examples? by David Vaughn Elliott



Did Jesus Use the Wrong Examples?
by David Vaughn Elliott

Do you remember when Jesus said: "as it was in the days of Elijah, so shall it be when the Son of man comes"? No, you don't--for the simple reason that the Bible records no such thing.  

If the popular rapture theory were true, Jesus would have used the examples of Elijah and Enoch. Elijah’s case is the more striking of the two. After the whirlwind took him into heaven, 50 men fruitlessly searched three days for him (2 Kings 2). Now that sounds like today’s rapture theory! The righteous disappear; those "left behind" are mystified; and daily life goes on. But there is a big problem here. Jesus never said, "As it was in the days of Elijah"!  

Jesus said, "As it was in the days of Lot… it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed." Jesus said, "As it was in the days of Noah... " Noah’s neighbors did not wonder what happened to him. They had watched him build his escape boat and gather in the animals. Life did not go on as usual. "The flood came, and destroyed them all." It was the end of that world. Jesus said His second coming would be like that! (Luke 17:26-30). 

Jesus compared His return to the days of Lot and Noah. Both involved the destruction of the wicked. No second chances. In the case of Sodom, it was not the end of the world; but it was the end of Sodom and Gomorrah. Those cities have never been found. Those people never had time to wonder what happened to Lot. There were no chariot wrecks. No search parties. Nobody was "left behind." Jesus said His coming would be like that. 

Jesus was not wrong; He did not use the wrong examples. It is today's popular novels that are wrong. Junk the novels. Believe the words of Jesus in the Holy Scriptures.