Not An Accident

Structure of DNA double helix

Some atheists tell us that life is an accident and any circumstantial evidence humans come up with to the contrary is simply a trick of the mind that wishes to find patterns where none actually exist.

But I have to wonder—how do they know that no pattern exists? It seems to me, the belief that no pattern exists is a result of believing that there is no designer to formulate a pattern. Otherwise, when element after element after element aligns in a pattern, why would you think, Yeah, but that’s just a coincidence.

For instance, “DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.” (See “Is There a God?”) What are the chances of such an intricate “instruction manual” just happening to develop—for each cell of the human body?!

But DNA is a quite new discovery. Long before technology allowed us such a close look, we saw designs. Humans have a small set of eye colors and hair color and skin colors, but we have an infinite number of finger prints. Can that uniqueness happen by accident?

We could look at seasons and the hours of sunlight in the day and the rings inside a tree and weather patterns and the digestive system and breathing—we’d see evidence of design at every turn. All these particulars have such a long shot probability of happening accidentally, we might as well say it’s impossible.

Why is it a plane can fly? Because air pressure is a constant.

Why is it that meteors don’t fall to earth and crush us? Because our atmosphere is the right thickness to protect us.

How can we measure time? Because the earth rotates at a constant speed and travels around the sun at a rate that doesn’t fluctuate.

In fact, we have a set of “natural laws” that allow us to predict and study the way our universe works, including our bodies. We know that gravity pulls things toward the earth’s core. That’s an immutable law. Drop a pencil ten times, a thousand times, a billion billion times, and it will fall to the ground.

We have laws of physics, laws of biology, laws of chemistry, laws of botany, laws of geology, laws of meteorology. And then there is math. Two plus two is always four, not sometimes four and sometimes six.

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, “Why nature is mathematical is a mystery…The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.”

There is order to the world that points to anything but an accident.

Accidents don’t produce advanced technology. As many times as those automobile safety tests have a car hit a brick wall, not once has the car come out in an advanced state.

This just scratches the surface. I haven’t mentioned moral law or aesthetics. Each would need a post of its own.

The fact is, order exists in our world. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

And order does not come from disorder—that’s actually one of those laws of science.

So something (or Someone) ordered—not randomness, chaos, chance, or accident—brought an ordered world into being. It’s only logical—which is also based on immutable laws. That someone looks at order and says, Caused by chance, reveals more about that someone than it does about the world.

What kind of person would look for an answer to the question, How did an ordered world full of intricate life—balanced ecosystems and complex organisms and natural laws—and conclude that the aggregation of it all came about by happenstance? Is that a logical conclusion? Or is that a conclusion someone would reach who has already ruled out the possibility of Someone great enough to design it all perfectly?

Take a look at just one fact about our planet, its distance from the sun:

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth’s position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. (Ibid)

What are the chances?

Well, some will tell us, given the vast number of galaxies in the universe, there’s a pretty good chance that there’s another planet just like ours with all the properties necessary for life.

And if there is such a place, why would we think it accidentally came into being any more than the Earth? If it’s unlikely that an accident produced one orderly biosphere, how much more unlikely would it be if there are two? In other words, a second habitable planet would increase the likelihood of design, not decrease it—given the incredibly improbable odds of all the right components being present to allow for life with respiratory systems and circulatory systems and digestive systems and cognition.

In all seriousness, I believe it takes wishful thinking to conclude that our planet, the solar system, the universe came about as a result of an accident instead of as the creation of an all powerful designer.

This article is a copy of one that appeared here in July 2015. So if you recognize it, you’re right, you have a good memory, and you’ve been stopping by for some years now. Thank you!

Published in: on August 26, 2019 at 5:08 pm  Comments (5)  
Tags: , , , ,


  1. In all seriousness, I believe it takes wishful thinking to conclude that our planet, the solar system, the universe came about as a result of an accident instead of as the creation of an all powerful designer.

    Except you cannot demonstrate the veracity of such a belief.
    And it gets worse for such a belief when one throws in Young Earth Creationism.


    • Ark, actually there is demonstrable evidence for such a belief. I did a post here about this some time ago, but here’s the short version: 1) Even single cell organisms contain complex parts. Complexity requires a complex designer.

      2) The existence of language, including DNA coding (the transfer of information). Suggests a communicating originator.

      3) Genetic code, a “set of rules.” Laws of nature exist. Mathematics exists. Requires an ordered source.

      4) Human ability to recognize and appreciate beauty. Suggests a designer who created aesthetics, something animals don’t have.

      5) Coherence in the big philosophical issues such as What is truth? Why are we here? Where did we come from? What is our destiny? Science gives no meaning to life and no explanation for why we even ask these questions, let alone answers to them.

      6) Morality. Humans have a sense of right and wrong. Fair and unfair. Truth and falsehood. Requires a moral designer.

      7) Evil. How could humans know evil if good does not exist? The world is not neutral and not homogenous. God explains this, not science.

      8) Worship. The nearly universal sense that there is a spiritual force or forces at work in the world. Far from “no god” being the default position, history bears out that “there is a god” is the default position. The question then becomes who is he and does he matter?

      9) Joy. C.S. Lewis in Surprised by Joy explained this far better than I ever could. The idea is that at times something seems so perfect—so beautiful, moving, uplifting, peaceful, “right”—that we simply want to capture it and stay in that moment for always. He identifies this as “joy.” But in fact the sense of perfection is fleeting. Nevertheless, it shows us that there is something more. And if we experience the taste of more, it’s likely we were made for more, God being that “more.”

      10) Eyesight. If eyesight were a product of evolution, a sightless creature would have had to simultaneously evolve by growing eyes and by developing the brain function that would translate the light into something meaningful. Belief in a designer is far more plausible.

      11) Hearing. Same with ears and the development of brain function that translates vibration into sound.

      I’m sure other people could add to that list, and probably have, but those are specifics that we can see (therefore, demonstrable evidence) that God exists. No, it doesn’t tell us the details about His nature and His plan and His purpose. For that we need more—a specific revelation. But He’s given us the general revelation that points us to Himself.



      • Let me try to cover the first two comments here:

        Let me try to cover both comments here?

        … in an atheist’s mind, that God created is not possible

        This is not quite correct.
        I reiterate, an atheist has no belief in gods – the Christian god or any other. This is based on no demonstrable evidence.

        As far as knowing is concerned, Christians do know, because God has told us.

        Sorry, this is simply Christian apologetic dogma and has no basis in evidence. However, I am always willing to engage any evidence you have for such a claim.

        As for the second comment. Every point you make (above) begins with an a priori presumption regarding your god. You have no means to link to a god let alone your particular god.

        If you wish to demonstrate the bona fides of your claims then you have to first provide evidence that your god exists.Citing ”creation” is not evidence.

        And even if were able to do this then you really have your work before you in order to demonstrate that this creator god is the same (Triune) god as manifested in the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth.
        I wish you the best of luck. Feel free to try.


        • I would think you’d see the point, Ark. If you don’t believe God exists, then in your mind, there can be no evidence for Him. This is why atheists can never answer the question, If an omnipotent God exists, what can’t He do (such as speaking the world into existence out of nothing). That question is stalled from the beginning, because atheist say, Well, God doesn’t exist so the rest is fiction.

          You’re right about the Bible being a truth claim without what you call evidence. The fact is, that looking at the world can show us God, but it goes no farther. What’s God like? Who is He? What is His plan for the world? Can I know Him? Those questions aren’t going to be answered unless He tells us the answers. And He has. But it does require an element of trust: God said this, or at least He said He said this. Can I confidently assert that He did and that what He said is true?

          But for the atheist who doesn’t believe God exists and therefore finds an alternative explanation for all evidence for Him, the truth claims of the Bible are going to look out of sync with reality. Because, without opening up the possibility of God’s existence, an atheist has made up his mind before ever looking at the facts.



          • If you don’t believe God exists, then in your mind, there can be no evidence for Him

            Theretofore, using this logic, if I believe Unicorns exist I will find evidence for them, then, yes?
            You see how utterly ridiculous your argument is, Becky?
            And this cripples your argument from the get go.
            This is why any presuppositional belief fails because it does not require any evidence for the believer to accept veracity for such a belief. In fact, for such a belief to be truly successful it requires the individual to actively suspend normal critical thought and merely bow to authority.

            ….because atheist say, Well, God doesn’t exist so the rest is fiction.

            I don’t think you are actually paying attention to what I write.
            Atheist DO NOT say your god does not exist, the argument is that there is no evidence for your god or any other god and thus such claims can be dismissed with impunity.
            And once more … the onus is always on the claimant – YOU – to provide evidence to demonstrate your claim, and repeating the trope that there is evidence but atheists do not accept it is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.:
            So is the worn out diatribe: What evidence would you accept?
            An omnipotent god will know what evidence would convince a non-believer.
            YOU were convinced, yes? Don’t tell me you believed based on faith alone</em ?
            Surely there was ample hard
            evidence for you, a rational thinking woman, to accept, yes?
            Atheists are fully open to the possibility of gods existing.
            You have the floor, Becky – so go ahead –present the evidence for your god.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: