There are three great concepts that one needs to process when thinking about the existence of God and competitive worldviews that endeavor to answer the deeper questions of life.
Irreducible complexity is an argument made in the discussion on evolution. While there are parts of evolution that can be substantiated (by this I mean, microevolution – one type of a sparrow evolving into another type of sparrow; contrast this with macroevolution, which I totally disagree with, that one species evolves into another species), this concept says that the origin of complex organs must be explained. Some organs require a minimum number of parts to work. The infinite number of small steps necessary for these kinds of developments is not likely in a strict evolutionary system. How do you account for the complexity of the human eye? Some living mechanisms are too complext to arise by the short steps required by evolution. There are many things that evolution cannot explain. Irredicibly complex organs is one of them. This fact alone wrecks Darwinism. Before you side with a Dawkins who said that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, explain irreducibly complex organs for starters, and then work from there. Evolution doesn’t know when its done. It doesn’t know that it shouldn’t turn us into whales, or crickets, or ground hogs. With far more people around today than centuries ago, you would expect some mutations, some development of more complex organs. Where are they?
Occams Razor simply states that there are a number of possible explanations for something and that one should go with the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions. Even Carl Sagan advised to go witht the hypotheses that was the simplest. The best route from point A to point B should not be a zig-zag theory. Evolutionary atheists invent a fantastically complicated set of circumstances in an attempt to explain our origins. Faith is not irrational, but offers a very clear explanation of how our universe and multiverses began. The vast majority of physicists admit a “Big Bang” that started it all, a First Cause.
Finally, the anthropic principle states that our universe was designed just right, so that we could live on planet earth. It’s as if someone “monkeyed with the physics”. It knew humans and life-forms were coming somehow. Modify the physics just slightly and we implode into the planet or explode off of it. It is precise; earth is a sanctuary of life.
We are irreducibly complex creatures, living in a world that was intelligently designed, with precise physics to sustain our survival. Faith is rational, even scientific, and yet some atheists describe it as a “mental illness”. The only thing mental about any of this is how and why human beings go to such great extremes to avoid the logical, succinct explanations offered by Christian Theism.
I agree with Dinesh D’Souza who argues that atheism is not primarily an intellectual revolt; it is a moral revolt. Atheists don’t find God invisible so much as objectionable. Like a supervisory parent, God is in the way and must be removed, discredited (using the error-filled Bible ironically enough), and He must be shown to be a “mental illness.”
How about starting out 2009 with a new worldview? You are irreducibly complex in your make-up, living in a world that is balanced on a razors edge, and playing dumb to what you know to be true is no longer the best way to answer life’s deeper questions. There’s a better way in 2009.