64405.1 Endnotes

The Language of Our Cells

1. William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 85.

2. Werner Gitt, “Dazzling Designs in Miniature,” Creation Ex Nihilo, December 1997–February 1998, 6.

3. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 1.

4. Nicholas Wade, “In Chimpanzee DNA, Signs of Y Chromosome’s Evolution,” New York Times, Sept. 1, 2005, A13.

5. William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2001), 108.

6. Ibid., 115.

7. Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 189.

8.  Ibid.

9. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 221.

10. Larry Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter, 2003), 147.

11. Simon Conway Morris, Life’s Solution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 46.

12. Schroeder, 192–193.

13. Amir D. Aczel, Probability 1 (New York: Harvest, 1998), 88.

14. Paul Davies, The 5th Miracle (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 20.

15. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Touchstone, 1996), 185.

16. Sir Fred Hoyle, “The Information Content of Life,” The Universe Unfolding (Oxford: Clarendon Press, eds. Sir Hermann Bondi & Miranda Weston-Smith, 1998), 8.

17. Aczel, 88.

18. Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), 88.

19. Nell Boyce, “Triumph of the Helix,” U. S. News & World Report, February 24/March 3, 2003, 41.

20. Aczel, 88.

21. William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: the Bridge between Science and Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity), 1999.

22. Antony Flew, quoted in video, “Has Science Discovered God?” Roy Abraham Varghese’s Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas, December, 2004.

23. Quoted in Gary Habermas, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism”: Interview with Antony Flew, Philosophia Christi, (Winter, 2005).

64406 6. Where Are Darwin’s Predicted Fossils?

DARWIN’S PREDICTION

Darwin’s theory of macroevolution states that each species, including human beings, is a link of an evolutionary chain which began billions of years ago with the earliest protocell. His theory states that over several billion years, lower forms of life would gradually evolve into higher species, leaving an abundance of transitional fossils for paleontologists to examine. His theory of human evolution progresses through six key evolutionary stages:

Darwin assumed that paleontologists would discover an abundance of transitional fossils verifying his theory of macroevolution.

The transitional fossils Darwin predicted aren’t those with microevolutionary changes of one type of bird evolving into another (like the finches he observed on Galapagos Islands), or one type of horse evolving into another horse, etc. Those are examples of minor changes within a particular species.

The transitional fossils Darwin predicted in his theory of macroevolution would show the incremental stages of development as one species gradually evolved into another totally different species, a process that he believed would take millions of years. So, if a fish gradually evolved into a mammal, countless intermediate fossils should be discovered showing many different stages between the fish and the mammal.

DARWIN’S DILEMMA

Darwin predicted that during the gradual evolutionary process, millions of transitional species would leave a trail of fossil evidence, showing how one species changed incrementally into another.

Darwin believed the discovery of transitional fossils would take us from the world of theory to the world of forensics. Fossils are hard evidence, not theoretical probabilities.

There were plenty of fossils for Darwin to evaluate, but he couldn’t understand why his theory’s predicted transitional fossils were absent from the fossil record. He wrote,

Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.1

But Darwin blamed the lack of transitional fossils on what he called, “an imperfect geological record.” However, he was still troubled, hoping the fossils would be found.

For nearly two centuries since Darwin began formulating his theory, paleontologists have been busy digging, classifying, and looking for his predicted fossils in a worldwide hunt. Billions of fossils representing about 250,000 species have been meticulously scrutinized.

Let’s see what this lengthy passage of time has revealed about Darwin’s predicted fossils.

FATAL BLOW TO DARWIN

We begin with the early Cambrian period. Paleontologists are at a loss to explain how life appeared so rapidly during the Cambrian period. Darwin himself had no explanation for how life could develop so quickly. Neither do paleontologists today.

Prior to the Cambrian period, only fossils of simple life forms have been excavated. Then, suddenly, the fossil record is teeming with more complex life forms than even exist today. It is so extraordinary that paleontologists call it the “Cambrian Explosion.”

Seemingly in an instant of geological time, complex life forms with fully developed eyes appeared during the Cambrian period. Because these complex life forms appeared suddenly in the geological record, paleontologists call it “biology’s big bang.”

What paleontologists find in the Cambrian explosion is not simply the appearance of a few new animals, but an abundance of fifty completely different body types without prior transitions or predecessors. In other words, brand new life forms appeared without an evolutionary trail.

Darwin staked his entire theory on the premise that a new species could never suddenly appear, since that would contradict his theory of natural selection. He said,

If numerous species, belonging to the same … families, have really started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.2

Darwin theorized that complex organs like the eye could only develop gradually over enormous periods of time, traceable to a common ancestor.

Yet five totally different phyla with no hint of a common ancestor all suddenly popped into existence during the Cambrian period, each with fully developed eyes.

As we learned in the last chapter, the eye is an irreducibly complex organ that has no functional value unless all its many parts synchronize to provide sight.3

T. S. Kemp, curator of the zoological collections at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, is one of the world’s foremost experts on Cambrian fossils. When discussing the sudden appearances of new species, Kemp discloses,

With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record already fully evolved. … It is not at all what might have been expected.4

Stephen Jay Gould, a staunch advocate of materialistic evolution, reiterates how the Cambrian explosion is a puzzle to Darwinists, writing,

We do not know why the Cambrian explosion could establish all major anatomical designs so quickly. … The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.5

The sudden appearance of new life forms in the Cambrian explosion contradicts Darwin’s theory and has been a source of great frustration to materialists.

But the Cambrian explosion of suddenly appearing life forms is not the only contradiction of Darwinian macroevolution.

American Paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, shockingly admits the failure of the entire fossil record to provide evidence for macroevolution, stating,

No one has found any such in-between creatures and there is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.6 No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen.7

Eldredge also explains the failure of paleontologists to recognize the failure of the fossil record to back up Darwin’s theory of gradualism.

Paleontologists clung to the myth of gradual adaptive transformation even in the face of plain evidence to the contrary.8

Leading atheist Richard Dawkins also clung to the myth of gradualism, admitting,

Without gradualness we are back to a miracle.9

DARWIN’S MISSING FOSSILS

According to paleontologists, the fossil record shows that most species do not change but rather remain virtually the same for millions of years. They call this phenomenon: stasis.

Although some fossils have been identified as possibly transitional (i.e., Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik roseae), Gould says that evolutionists simply avoid talking about the embarrassing lack of fossil evidence. He confesses the silence regarding the lack of transitional fossils,

It’s not evolution so you don’t talk about it.10

As a committed evolutionary leader, Gould admits to the failure of the fossil record as being the “trade secret of paleontology.”

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and notes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.11

Paleontologist Whitey Hagadorn, who has comprehensively studied fossils of early marine life notes the absence of transitional fossils.

Paleontologists have the best eyes in the world. If we can’t find the fossils, sometimes you have to think that they just weren’t there.12

Kemp, Gould, Eldredge and Hagadorn are all noted paleontologists who honestly admit that the fossil evidence Darwin predicted of interim species does not exist.

Because the transitional fossils Darwin predicted haven’t been unearthed, both Gould and Eldredge developed the theory that life didn’t evolve gradually over long periods of time, but rather that new species evolved in short spurts. They call their theory “Punctuated Equilibria,” a radical departure from Darwin’s theory of gradualism.

WHERE IS THE HUMAN FOSSIL TRAIL?

When it comes to the origin of human beings, Darwin’s theory clearly states that we are not unique but rather are the end product of billions of years of evolution from tiny protocells. Gould, who admitted the failure of the fossil record to support Darwinism, stated that our existence as a species was the result of “a glorious accident.” When asked in an interview what the accident was, Gould replied,

The accident is the 60 trillion contingent events that eventually led to the emergence of Homo sapiens.13

60 trillion lucky breaks? Hmm.

Is there any real evidence that humans evolved? Darwin believed the fossil trail would show the progressive evolution of our species from ancient primates and hominids. So, have paleoanthropologists discovered an evolutionary link between hominids and us?

We’ve all seen museum exhibits or artists’ renderings like this drawing depicting slightly erect ape-like creatures that presumably became us.

Such exhibits and drawings imply that there is solid fossil evidence to back up the claim that pre-human fossils have been discovered. But have they actually discovered such pre-human fossils?

Paleoanthropologists have uncovered pieces of bones and skull fragments from fossils they consider human ancestors. Ardipithecus ramidus, the oldest of these, is dated at over 4 million years old. Homo habilis and Homo erectus are depicted as more recent members of our family tree. But what evidence supports their belief that these hominid fossils are truly our ancestors?

It all looks and sounds so convincing. However, what sounds like a solid argument for human ancestry unravels when experts analyze the fossils. Henry Gee, the chief science writer for Nature admits,

The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.14

The problem is that there is almost no fossil evidence to examine. Paleoanthropologists are attempting to fill in an enormous puzzle with only a few fragments of bones and teeth that according to Gee, could be “fitted into a small box.”15

Although Gould remained an evolutionist, he agreed with the difficulty of connecting an evolutionary trail between hominids and Homo sapiens, stating,

Most hominid fossils, even though they serve as a basis for endless speculation and elaborate storytelling, are fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls.16

Gee and Gould are not the only experts pointing out the absence of transitional fossils between hominids and us. Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin also admitted,

When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record.17 

HUMANS APPEARED SUDDENLY

Although small fragments of hominid bones have been discovered, there is a huge jump from such creatures to our own species. Naturalist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) refers to the suddenness with which humans appear in the fossil record.

Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.18

Darwinists are unable to explain why our species appeared so suddenly. Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University of Sussex, John Maynard Smith, writes,

Something very puzzling happened…. The fossil evidence is patchy, but it seems that hominids suddenly developed brains that, in terms of size, were much like ours.19 

The fossil record shows that hominids had small, ape-like brains and no capacity for language. Then, suddenly, man appears with several unique features, including an enlarged brain capacity. Tattersall, Smith and other naturalists are puzzled as to why there are no clear-cut links between hominids without language capacity and Homo sapiens who have both the hardware and the software for language, something unique to our species.

The sudden brain size and language capacity of Homo sapiens in the fossil record presents a huge problem for Darwinists who argue against a designer. In his book, Mapping Human History, evolutionist Steve Olson spells out the problem.

Of course, language could not have come from nowhere. To speak, early humans needed particular vocal and neural mechanisms. But here a notorious problem arises. Any adaptations produced by evolution are useful only in the present, not in some vaguely defined future.20

For human speech to work, the brain structure, the tongue, the larynx, the vocal cords, and many other parts all need to be fully developed in synchrony as if it had been designed. Once again, Darwinism is confronted with its unsolved puzzle of irreducible complexity.

Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, explains the dramatic difference between hominids and us,

Humans have the ability to conceptualize, resulting in the development of art, literature, mathematics, and science.  Hominids and all other animals lack this unique human quality, and are only able to communicate by giving and receiving signals.21

The lack of a transitional link from primates to man led Mayr to conclude,

Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers.22

During an interview with the French science monthly La Recherché, mathematician Marcel Schutzenberger was asked, “The appearance of human beings—is that a miracle?” The brilliant mathematician replied by stating that Darwinism has been unable to explain the uniqueness and sudden appearance of man. He concludes his remarks with,

Naturally. And here it does seem that there are voices among contemporary biologists—I mean voices other than mine—who might cast doubt on the Darwinian paradigm. The reality is that we are confronted with total conceptual bankruptcy.23

Lewontin also poured cold water on claims that a missing link between humans and apes has been discovered. He admitted,

Despite the exciting and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.24

DARWIN’S FATALLY FLAWED MYTH

Darwin said, “the most obvious and serious objection” to his theory was the lack of intermediate fossils showing how one species gradually evolved into another species. He also said,

If numerous species, belonging to the same … families, have really started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.

The Cambrian explosion, as well as the entire fossil record of the past century and a half have confirmed Darwin’s worst fears, that his theory of macroevolution is fatally flawed. Biochemist Michael Denton pronounces his verdict on Darwin’s theory of macroevolution.

One might have expected that a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth. Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is not more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.25

But the main failure of Darwinism is not just the failure of the fossil record to support macroevolution. It’s Darwin’s premise that life is simply the result of time plus chance without an intelligent primary cause. To most people that just doesn’t make sense, even to open-minded materialists and atheists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel writes of his reasons for rejecting Darwinism.26

I realized that if I were to embrace Darwinism and its underlying premise of naturalism, I would have to believe that:

  • Nothing produces everything
  • Non-life produces life
  • Randomness produces fine-tuning
  • Chaos produces information
  • Unconsciousness produces consciousness
  • Non-reason produces reason

Strobel continues,

Based on this, I was forced to conclude that Darwinism would require a blind leap of faith that I was not willing to make.

The Darwinian belief that life all came about by chance over eons of time has failed to meet Darwin’s own standard of proof. But, if life can’t be explained apart from intelligent design, what did the designer reveal about himself and our purpose here on Earth?

In the final chapter we will see if there is an answer to these all-important questions.

64406.1 Endnotes

The Case of the Missing Links

1. Michael Boulter, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man (London: Columbia University Press 2005).

2. Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin (London: Phoenix Giant, 1995), 33.

3. Wim Kayzer, “A Glorious Accident” (New York: Freeman, 1997), 92.

4. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed. (New York: University Press, 1988), 413.

5. Steven Stanley, Macroevolution (San Francisco: Freeman, 1979), 2.

6. Darwin, 344.

7. Ibid.

8. Behe, 22.

9. T. S. Kemp, Fossils and Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 253.

10. Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden (New York: Basic, 1995), 83.

11. Stephen Jay Gould, “The Evolution of Life,” Scientific American, October 1994.

12. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase MD: Alder & Alder, 1986), 46-56.

13. George Alexander, “Alternative Theory of Evolution Considered,” Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

14. Kemp, 147.

15. Eldredge, 95.

16. Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” (lecture, Hobart and William and Smith College, February 14, 1980).

17. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, vol.86, May 1977,14.

18. Quoted in, Thomas Hayden, “A Theory Evolves,” U.S. News & World Report, July 29, 2002, 2.

19. Eldredge, 63.

20. Behe, 27–30.

21. Denton, 193–4.

22. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God (New York: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, 2001), 91.

23. Simon Conway Morris, Life’s Solution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), front book jacket.

24. Darwin, 413.

25. M. H. Ho and P. T. Saunders, “Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 78 (1979), 589.

26. George Alexander, Ibid.

27. Quoted in William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2001), 127.

64408 8. Endnotes

Did the Universe have a Beginning?

  1. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1990), 38-51.
  2. Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe (New York: Vintage, 2000), 81-82.
  3. George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time (New York: Avon, 1993), 36.
  4. Greene, Ibid.
  5. Greene, 83.
  6. Stephen Hawking, ed., Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time: A Reader’s Companion (New York: Bantam, 1992), 63.
  7. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 39.
  8. Smoot and Davidson, 80-83.
  9. Ibid., 187.
  10. Associated Press, “U.S. Scientists Find a ‘Holy Grail’: Ripples at the Edge of the Universe,” International Herald Tribune (London), April 24, 1992, 1.
  11. Thomas H. Maugh II, “Relics of ‘Big Bang’ Seen for First Time,”
  12. Nightline with Ted Koppel, ABC, April 25, 1992.
  13. Gregg Easterbrook, “Before the Big Bang,” U. S. News & World Report special edition, 2003, 16.
  14. Hugh Ross, “Big Bang Passes Test,” Connections, Qtr. 2, 2003.
  15. Smoot and Davidson, 291.
  16. Bradford A. Smith, “New Eyes on the Universe,” National Geographic, January 1994, 33.
  17. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 224.
  18. Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 230.
  19. Smoot and Davidson, 30.
  20. Smoot and Davidson, 17.

WHY IS ONLY EARTH SUITABLE FOR LIFE?

  1. Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 131.
  2. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 53.
  3. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1990), 121–122.
  4. John D. Barrow and George Silk, The Left Hand of Creation: The Origin and Evolution of the Expanding Universe (New York: Basic, 1983), 206.
  5. Lawrence M. Krauss, “The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited,” Astrophysical Journal 501 (1998): 461–466.
  6. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 53.
  7. Ibid., 187.
  8. Ibid., 187-193.
  9. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004), 132–138.
  10. Ibid., 132-138.
  11. Ross. 175-199.
  12. Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth (New York: Copernicus, 2000).
  13. William J. Broad, “Maybe We Are Alone in the Universe After All,” New York Times, (February 8, 2000), 1-4.
  14. Joel Achenbach, “Life Beyond Earth,” National Geographic (January, 2000, Special Millennium Issue), 45.
  15. Hawking, 124.
  16. Gregg Easterbrook, “Before the Big Bang,” U.S. News & World Report, special edition, 2003, 16.

IS THE UNIVERSE A PRODUCT OF DESIGN OR CHANCE?

  1. Dietrick E. Thompsen, “The Quantum Universe: A Zero-Point Fluctuation?” Science News, August 3
  2. Hugh Ross, Reasons.org, “Probability for Life on Earth,” April 1, 2004.
  3. Roger Penrose, (1989). The emperor’s new mind: Concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics. (Oxford University Press).
  4. Paul Davies, Other Worlds (London: Penguin, 1990), 169.
  5. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1990), 190.
  6. John Boslough, Stephen Hawking’s Universe (New York: Avon, 1989), 109.
  7. Martin Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat (London: Phoenix, 2003), 164.
  8. Charles Seife, Alpha and Omega (New York: Viking Penguin, 2003), 222.
  9. Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe (New York: Vintage, 2000), 368.
  10. Paul Davies, Other Worlds (London: Penguin, 1990), 14.
  11. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), 174.
  12. Gregg Easterbrook, “The New Convergence,” Wired, December 2002, Issue 10.12.
  13. Seife, Ibid.
  14. Carr, B. J. and Rees, M. J. (1979). “The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world”. Nature, 278 (5705), pp. 605-612.
  15. Quoted in Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 158.
  16. Hawking, 131.
  17. Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions—The World as I See It (New York: Bonanza, 1931), 40.
  18. Edward Harrison, Masks of the Universe (New York: Collier, 1985), 252, 263.
  19. Arno Penzias, quoted by Walter Bradley in “The Designed ‘Just-so’ Universe”, 1999.

WAS LIFE DESIGNED?

  1. Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2021), 165.
  2. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 221.
  3. Simon Conway Morris, Life’s Solution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 46.
  4. Meyer, Ibid.
  5. Meyer, Ibid.
  6. Meyer, Ibid.
  7. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 1.
  8. Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 189.
  9. Nicholas Wade, “In Chimpanzee DNA, Signs of Y Chromosome’s Evolution,” New York Times, Sept. 1, 2005, A13.
  10. Cited in William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2001), 108.
  11. Schroeder, 192–193.
  12. Nell Boyce, “Triumph of the Helix,” U. S. News & World Report, February 24/March 3, 2003, 41.
  13. Amir D. Aczel, Probability 1 (New York: Harvest, 1998), 88.
  14. Paul Davies, The 5th Miracle (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 20.
  15. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Touchstone, 1996), 185.
  16. Sir Fred Hoyle, “The Information Content of Life,” The Universe Unfolding (Oxford: Clarendon Press, eds. Sir Hermann Bondi & Miranda Weston-Smith, 1998), 8.
  17. Cited in Meyer, 165.
  18. Aczel, 88.
  19. Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), 88.
  20. Aczel, 88.
  21. Antony Flew, quoted in video, “Has Science Discovered God?” Roy Abraham Varghese’s Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas, December 2004.
  22. Cited in Gary Habermas, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism”: Interview with Antony Flew, Philosophia Christi, (Winter, 2005).
  23. Stephen C. Meyer, “DNA and other Designs,” First Things, 102 (April 2000): 30-38.
  24. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, 175.
  25. William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2001), 108.

DID DARWIN GET IT WRONG?

  1. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989),1.
  2. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (New York: Bantam Books, 1999), 158.
  3. Ibid., 156.
  4. Charles Darwin (1860) in letter to Asa Gray, F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol, 2, (London: John Murray, 1888), 273.
  5. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God (New York, NY: Touchstone, 2001), 151.
  6. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 2003), 22.
  7. Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 199.
  8. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 2003), 69-73.
  9. Macnab, R. (1978), “Bacterial Mobility and Chemotaxis: The Molecular Biology of a Behavioral System,” CRC Critical Reviews in Biochemistry, vol. 5, issue 4, Dec., 291-341.
  10. William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller”, William Dembski@baylor.ed 2.17.03, v.1.01.
  11. Behe, 51.
  12. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD, Adler & Adler, 1986), 328.
  13. Alan Sandage, “A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief,” Truth: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Christian Thought, Vol. 1, (1985).
  14. James Shapiro, “In the details …what?” National Review, (September 16, 1996), 62-65.

WHERE ARE DARWIN’S MISSING FOSSILS?

  1. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed. (New York: University Press, 1988), 413.
  2. Darwin, 248.
  3. See previous chapter, “Darwin’s Challenge.”
  4. T. S. Kemp, Fossils and Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 253.
  5. Stephen Jay Gould, “The Evolution of Life,” Scientific American, October 1994.
  6. George Alexander, “Alternative Theory of Evolution Considered,” Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.
  7. Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin (London: Phoenix Giant, 1995), 95.
  8. Ibid., 63.
  9. Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden (New York: Basic, 1995), 83.
  10. Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” (lecture, Hobart and William and Smith College, February 14, 1980).
  11. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, vol.86, May 1977,14.
  12. Quoted in, Thomas Hayden, “A Theory Evolves,” U.S. News & World Report, July 29, 2002, 2.
  13. Wim Kayzer, “A Glorious Accident” (New York: Freeman, 1997), 92.
  14. Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 62.
  15. Ibid.
  16. Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, (W. W. Norton & Company, 1980), 126.
  17. R. C. Lewontin, Human Diversity, (Scientific American  Library, 1995), 163.
  18. Ian Tattersall, The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 246.
  19. John Maynard Smith, “The Importance of Gossip,” article in Rita Carter, Mapping the Mind (London: Phoenix Books, 2002), 257.
  20. Steve Olson, Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2002), 87.
  21. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 253.
  22. Ibid., 252.
  23. Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, “The Miracles of Darwinism,” La Recherché, January 1996.
  24. Lewontin, Ibid.
  25. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis (Chevy Chase MD: Adler & Adler, 1986), 358.
  26. Lee Strobel, The Case For A Creator, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan2004), 277.

IS A DESIGNER REVEALED IN CREATION?

  1. Lee Strobel, The Case For A Creator, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan2004), 283.
  2. Fred Hoyle, “Let There Be Light,” Engineering and Science (November 1981).
  3. Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions—The World As I See It (New York: Bonanza, 1931), 40.
  4. Quoted in John Boslough, Stephen Hawking’s Universe (New York: Avon, 1989), 109.
  5. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 174.
  6. Stephen Hawking, ed., Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time: A Reader’s Companion (New York: Bantam, 1992), 142.
  7. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, Touchstone, 1984), 199.
  8. Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1998), Prologue
  9. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomer ((New York: Norton, 1978), 116.
  10. Arthur Schawlow, Biographical Memoirs V. 83 by Steven Chu and Charles H. Townes, (National Academies Press, 2003), 201.
  11. Francis A. Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1976), 9.
  12. William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000), 63.
  13. Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968), 118.
  14. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 119.
  15. Ibid., 123.
  16. George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time (New York: Avon Books, 1993), 17.
  17. H. G. Wells, quoted in Bruce Barton, “H. G. Wells Picks Out the Six Greatest Men in History,” The American Magazine, Vol. 94, July, 1922, 13-14.

64407.1 Endnotes

The Human Enigma

1. Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 62.

2. Ibid. 63.

3. Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, (W. W. Norton & Company, 1980), 126.

4. R. C. Lewontin, Human Diversity, (Scientific American  Library, 1995), 163.

5. Ian Tattersall, The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 246.

6. John Maynard Smith, “The Importance of Gossip,” article in Rita Carter, Mapping the Mind (London: Phoenix Books, 2002), 257.

7. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 253.

8. Steve Olson, Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2002), 87.

9. Lewontin, Ibid.

10. Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, “The Miracles of Darwinism,” La Recherché, January 1996.

11. Mayr, 252.

12. Tattersall, 219.

13. Fazale R. Rana, “Neanderthal-Human Link Severed, “ Connections, Qtr 2, 2003, 8-9.

14. Olson, 29.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid., 25.

18. Olson, 86.

19. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis (Chevy Chase MD: Adler & Adler, 1986), 330-331.

20. Denton, 331.

21. Stephen Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell (London: Bantam, 2001), 169.

22. Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Ballantine, 1985), 229.

23. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 112.

24. Ibid.

25. Mayr, 252.

26. Nicholas Wade, “In Chimpanzee DNA, Signs of Y Chromosome’s Evolution,” New York Times, Sept. 1, 2005, A13.

27. C. D. L. Wynne, “The Soul of the Ape”, American Scientist, 89 (2001), 120-122.

28. Carter, 312.

29. Ibid., 298.

30. Sagan, Ibid.

31. Sir John Maddox, “The Genesis Code by Numbers,” Scientific American, December 1999, 62–67.

32. C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan, 1947), 45–49.

33. Laurence W. Wood, Asbury Theological Journal 41, no.1 (1986).

34. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 59.

35. Stephen Jay Gould, quoted in Wim Kayzer, ‘A Glorious Accident’ (New York: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1997), 93.

36. Mayr, Ibid.

37. Mayr, Ibid.

38. Schroeder, 159.

64407 7. Is a Designer Revealed in Creation?

In the previous chapters we’ve seen how many scientists are now speaking of a “superintellect” who created the universe from nothing, fine-tuned it for life, and designed the incredibly complex “software” coding of DNA.

The only other option to an intelligent designer is that somehow it all just happened by what Stephen Jay Gould called, “60 trillion contingent events.” He and other materialists are willing to believe we are the results of such impossible odds rather than accept the overwhelming evidence for intelligent design.

So, we must choose between a mathematically impossible stroke of luck that we are here on planet Earth, or the obvious inference of an intelligent designer who planned it all.

Once former atheist Lee Strobel realized the failure of Darwinism to account for our existence, he began a quest to discover the truth about an intelligent designer. He writes,

As I reviewed the avalanche of information from my investigation, I found the evidence for an intelligent designer to be credible, cogent, and compelling.1

Agnostic physicist Fred Hoyle, who originally scoffed at creation, became so persuaded by the case for a superintellect that he admitted,

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.2

Albert Einstein, who is considered by many to be the greatest intellect in the history of humanity referred to the intelligence behind creation as,

…an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.3

Even atheist Stephen Hawking admitted there are “religious implications” about why our universe is so perfect for life that science can’t answer.4 He admitted,

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why.5

Since materialists like Hawking are unable to answer the question of why everything is so perfectly fine-tuned for life, he merely passes the baton to philosophers and theologians. Yet, Hawking himself never acknowledged the existence of an intelligent designer.

However, many other scientists and philosophers have been outspoken about the evidence for a creator. When it comes to the intelligence behind the sophisticated coding of DNA, British philosopher Antony Flew renounced his fifty years of staunch atheism to accept the reality of an intelligent designer.

HAS IT ALL BEEN DESIGNED FOR US?

So, why is everything in the universe so perfectly fine-tuned for human life to exist? Mathematician Roger Penrose –who, with Hawking, derived proof for the beginning of time–offers his insight:

There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.6

English theoretical physicist Paul Davies explains how intelligent design throughout the universe clearly points to a purpose for our existence.

The laws which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose included us.7

Biochemist Michael Denton, senior research fellow in human molecular genetics at the University of Otago in New Zealand says that the evidence the universe exists for mankind is more compelling today than at any time in the history of modern science. He writes,

No other theory or concept imagined by man can equal in boldness and audacity this great claim … that all the starry heavens, and every species of life, that every characteristic of reality exists for mankind.8

These scientists have concluded that the universe has been designed for us, the only creatures with the intelligence to gaze at the stars and wonder who put them there. However, scientists like Hoyle, Einstein, Hawking, Davies, and Jastrow have not been able to answer the question of why we are here, passing the baton to philosophers and theologians.

Astronomer Robert Jastrow, who helped establish the scientific goals for the exploration of the moon during the Apollo lunar landings, explains why science has passed the baton of explaining our meaning and purpose to philosophers and theologians:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.9

A PERSONAL CREATOR?

Many scientists like Arthur L. Schawlow, former Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believe that our new understanding of the universe provides compelling evidence for a personal God who cares about our needs. He explained, 

It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.10

So, have we been created for a higher purpose than just to live for a certain number of years, make a living, have children, get old, and then die? Is that all there is to life?

Is there really a personal God who not only created us, but has also spoken to us about himself and our purpose on Earth?

Many think that God is simply an impersonal force like quantum energy, that has no feelings and is unable to relate to our human needs.

However, philosopher Francis Schaeffer deduces that it would be impossible for an impersonal being to create our complex universe as well as personal beings like us. He writes, 

No one has ever demonstrated how…an impersonal being can produce the needed complexity of the universe, let alone the personality of man.11

Dr. William Lane Craig lays out the argument for a personal Creator with the following logical deduction:12

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Craig deduces that since intelligence, volition, and power are all implied in the act of creating, the Creator must be personal. A mere force wouldn’t have had the creative ability to plan it all.

If we think about a painting such as the Mona Lisa, we see the same things. Leonardo Da Vinci needed intelligence, volition, and power to paint the image he wanted to portray. These attributes point to Da Vinci being a person, and not a mere force. Likewise, both the creation and fine-tuning of the universe point to a personal creator.

HAS THE CREATOR SPOKEN?

Even many non-Christian scientists have acknowledged that the Creator has revealed his intelligence, power, and intentionality throughout the universe. But, has he spoken to us about why he created us and what our purpose is here on Earth?

A creator who intentionally designed us with consciousness, personality, and the ability to communicate would be able to communicate with us if he so desired. And of all creatures on Earth, humans are the only ones who can communicate propositional ideas –and we do it through written and spoken language. The philosopher Francis Schaeffer reasons,

Why should he not communicate in verbalized form when he has made man a verbalized being?13

Schaeffer then goes on to explain why God’s communication through history and science should be consistent with his written revelation. In The God Who is There, Schaeffer explains that God has communicated to us through science and the Bible.

God has set the revelation of the Bible in history; God has also set man in the universe, which the Scriptures themselves say speaks of this God. What sense then would it make for God to give his revelation in a book that was wrong concerning the universe? God has spoken, in a linguistic propositional form, truth concerning himself and truth concerning man, history and the universe.14

Schaeffer summarizes how God’s truth is revealed in both science and the Bible.

God has communicated to man, not only about the cosmos and history but also about himself.15

SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE

Although science had originally been compatible with belief in God and the Bible, it drifted into materialism after the Enlightenment. By the time Hubble discovered that the universe had a one-time beginning, most scientists believed it had always existed. If the universe had always existed, materialists presumed there would be no need for a creator. They scoffed at the Bible as a book of unscientific myths.

However, Hubble’s discovery stunned materialists who suddenly had to ask how everything could come from nothing. Many scientists admitted that the Bible had been right all along.

Agnostic George Smoot, who won the Nobel Prize for verifying the one-time creation of the universe, stated that “an obvious parallel exists between the big bang and the Christian teaching of creation from nothing.”16 

So, what are the parallels Smoot refers to?

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT THE CREATOR?

In Genesis, the first book of the Bible, it says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” (Genesis 1:1) The Bible reveals the following things about God and creation:

  • God exists outside of time
  • God created everything from nothing
  • Everything was created for man’s existence

The New Testament book of John tells us that it was through Jesus Christ that everything was created, including life itself. (John 1:1-14).

But what was the evidence that convinced John and the other writers of the New Testament that Jesus was God in human skin?

Jesus’ righteous life, his miracles, and his profound teaching captured the hearts of his followers. But it wasn’t until after Jesus’ resurrection from the dead they fully believed that he was the fulfillment of hundreds of Old Testament prophecies revealing that God himself would come to Earth to become the Savior for our sins, making it possible for us to have eternal life with him (Isaiah 9:6; chapter 53).

Jesus’ followers wrote that he was the one who put the stars in space, established the laws of the universe, and created everything including DNA and us. It was a mind-blowing thought to them that God himself was in their presence.

WHO IS THE REAL JESUS?

The apostle Paul, who originally opposed Jesus, later wrote of him as the Creator of everything—including life itself,

“Now Christ is the visible expression of the invisible God. He existed before creation began, for it was through him that everything was made…. In fact, every single thing was created through, and for him…Life from nothing began through him, and life from the dead began through him, and he is, therefore, justly called the Lord of all.” (Portions of Colossians 1:15-17, J. B. Phillips.)

The New Testament book of Hebrews reveals that Jesus is the radiance of God who created the universe.

It also tells us that God speaks to us today through Jesus Christ.

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” (Hebrews 1:1-3, NIV)

If Jesus was the Creator, we would expect his life to have impacted our world more than any other person in history. The historian H.G. Wells, who was not a believer, affirms Jesus’ unique impact on history:

I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.17

So, is Jesus Christ the one who answers the basic questions about life:

  • How did we get here?
  •  What is our purpose here?
  • Where do we go after we die?

And what does Jesus tell us about God? Is he merely an impersonal force, or is he a good God who loves us and cares about us personally?

Jesus claimed to not just answer these questions, but to offer forgiveness, acceptance, hope, and a personal relationship with himself as our Creator.

But how do we know his promises are true?

The eBook, Who Is the Real Jesus, answers these important questions.

We encourage you to download the eBook and investigate evidence for Jesus’ reality, his claims, his identity, his resurrection, and his amazing promise of eternal life.

DISCOVER THE EVIDENCE AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF

  1. Was Jesus a Real Person?
  2. Was there a Jesus Conspiracy?
  3. Is Jesus God?
  4. Are the Gospels Reliable?
  5. Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah?
  6. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
  7. Is Jesus Relevant Today?

64408.1 Endnotes

Imagine the Designer


1. Fred Hoyle, “Let There Be Light,” Engineering and Science (November 1981).

2. Quoted in John Boslough, Stephen Hawking’s Universe (New York: Avon, 1989), 109.

3. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 174.

4. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe (New York: William Morrow, 1988), 27.

5. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, Touchstone, 1984), 199.

6. Stephen Hawking, ed., Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time: A Reader’s Companion (New York: Bantam, 1992), 142.

7. Paul Davies, Superforce (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), 243.

8. William Keel, “Quasars Explained,” Astronomy, vol. 31, no. 2 (February, 2003), 42-47.

9. Ibid. Alexei Fileppenko, “When Stars Explode,” 42-47.

10. Keel, 35-41.

11. Jan van Paradijs, “From Gamma-Ray bursts to Supernovae,” Science, 286 (1999) 693-95.

12. Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions—The World As I See It (New York: Bonanza, 1931), 40.

13. Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1996), 100–102.

14. Carl Sagan, Contact (New York: Simon & Schuster, Pocket Books, 1985), 420.

15. Ibid., 430, 431.

16. William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000), 63.

17. Francis A. Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1976), 9.

18. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2004).

Acknowledgments

The Struggle for Inner Peace

Revised and Updated

Dr. Henry Brandt

© 2018 Henry Brandt Foundation. All rights reserved.

Originally published as The Struggle for Peace

© 1965 by SP Publications, Inc, Wheaton, Illinois.

Revised edition, ©1984 by SP Publications, Inc. Second Printing, 1986.

E-book edition, © 2008 Henry Brandt Foundation.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007, 2013 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.TM Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com. The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.TM

Scripture quotations marked ESV are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

ISBN-13:978-1721926909
ISBN-10:1721926909

BiblicalCounselingInsights.com

65701 1. Life’s Many Stresses

Rachel was a bundle of nerves. She could not sit still for long. She would often pace the floor. She tossed and turned in bed at night, unable to sleep. Her family and friends wondered what was wrong with her. More and more, she would, for no apparent reason, suddenly break off a conversation, turn away as if angry, and refuse to say anything more to them.

She had gone to her physician because she was nervous and jittery. After a thorough examination the doctor assured her that her nervous system was all right, and that there was nothing physically wrong with her. He said some problem must be troubling her.

And so, at the advice of her physician, she came to our clinic for counseling. Knowing her history of “nervousness” from the referral, I proceeded to try and discover the reason.

“Are you experiencing any difficulties?”
Rachel was quite surprised. “That’s what my doctor asked me.”
“Are you?”
“No, I don’t have any problems.”
“How are you getting along with your husband?”
“Oh, fine,” she replied.
“Any problem with the children?”
“No.”
“Or with your parents?”
“No.”
“In-laws?”
“Neighbors?”
“No.”

We were having a fast-moving conversation. She was answering my questions promptly—too promptly—without even giving them a passing thought. It is not unusual for a reluctant client to respond this way.

“Are you here because you wanted to come?” I asked.

“Frankly, no,” she said, “I’m here because my physician insisted. To be honest with you, I’m disgusted to be here. What can talking to you possibly do for my nerves? Does my physician think I’m a mental case?”

She answered my last question with a lot of emotion and more information than her previous terse replies. There was a lively person under that indifferent front after all.

“You must have an ideal life,” I ventured.

“Well, no,” she replied, smiling faintly. “I wouldn’t exactly say that.”

“Then what about it is not ideal?”

She thought for a few seconds, then volunteered: “Well, I’d be a little happier if my husband were more considerate.”

I encouraged her to be specific.

“To be truthful, there are a number of things he does that put a damper on the happiness of our home,” she said. She went on to explain that her marriage had not turned out just the way she thought it would. In fact, she said, there were many ways her husband failed to measure up.

“If his friends only knew the way he treats me!” By her tone and choice of words she was implying a selfish, heartless brute of a man.

“In what ways is he inconsiderate?” I asked.

She did not reply and was silent for nearly two minutes. Finally she said, “I can’t seem to think of anything specific right now.”

I asked her to think awhile longer. I knew it wasn’t necessary to talk just to fill a gap in our conversation. She sat quietly for several minutes. Eventually she spoke.

“I’m a little embarrassed—oh, it’s not anything I should bring up. I mean it’s kind of small, but anyway, you asked me to be specific, so I’ll tell you what comes to my mind.

“It started early in our marriage. You see we have a toothbrush holder in the bathroom. I’m left-handed so I’ve always liked to put my toothbrush in the slot farthest to the left. He’s right-handed, and he knows I’m used to that slot. But time after time, where do I find his toothbrush? In my slot!”

These are the kinds of things we hear cause issues in relationships, but we never quite believe it. She really was frustrated over this simple thing; and it was a very real frustration.

She apologized again for bringing up such a trivial thing but said it did remind her of something else.

“It’s the sink in our bathroom. Do you think he’ll wipe it out when he’s through shaving? Never! And the towels—when I ask him to put clean ones out, he hangs them on the racks with a horizontal fold instead of a vertical.” And that, she indicated, was enough to upset anybody.

There was more. Her father had always gone down to the kitchen before the rest of the family and had the coffee ready when the family started their day. But not her husband. He never got near the coffee maker.

She continued. “I try and try to get him to match his tie with his shirt, but he goes to work looking like a rainbow if I don’t see him before he leaves the house.”

At the start she had presented her husband as an awful individual. But like many people who describe their antagonists in broad, accusing terms, she could come up with no more serious indictments than these when asked to be specific.

Often a person seeking counsel will describe a spouse as someone against whom the counselor should be protected by a bodyguard. But when the spouse turns up for an interview, he proves to be quite a gentleman (or lady)—and with some complaints of his (or her) own. This was the case with Rachel’s husband, Paul.

“She complains when I raise the bedroom window a half inch,” he said one day when it was his turn to speak. He also liked to watch the football game on television, but she always chose that time to talk to him.

“I’m not against talking with her,” he said, “but why on earth can’t she wait until the game is over?”

Her answer? “If he loved me, he’d put me ahead of his dumb ball game.” She believed that if he’d just stop his irritating ways there would be no problem between them. I asked him why he didn’t.

“Because she won’t change the ways she annoys me,” he said.

They were caught in a vicious circle, a pattern that had developed in their marriage because of the habits each had brought into it. Who would link a misplaced toothbrush to nervousness? Yet, add the dirty sink, and the towels, and the coffee, and the mismatched necktie, and the windows, and the television sports, and you have battlegrounds in the bathroom, kitchen, bedroom, and living room, as well as at the front door. For most couples you can add on minor eruptions centering on the church, the neighbor’s children, and the checkout clerk at the grocery store.

Some irritants are more exasperating than others. Take the skirmish over the football game on television. He knows she’ll try to distract him the minute he turns on the game, so he is tempted to delay going home and to ask himself where else he can watch television. She thinks to herself, Oh brother! It’s almost time for him to come home and turn on that annoying game.

Even before Paul and Rachel see each other at the end of the day, they are already sparring (and no one has yet fought a battle without raising a host of emotions). They brought this pattern of behavior into their marriage. The slightest issue becomes a debate. To lose a decision is considered a bitter defeat. To win a decision is sweet victory. But in victory there is always a loser and losing is an irritant.

The tiniest loss, even if it is a minor issue, can be extremely frustrating. A speck in your eye is not a serious problem, but it is so annoying that it takes all your attention until it is removed. A grain of sand is nothing, but put enough grains together and you have a ton of sand. So it is with one’s response to conflict. Each aggravation becomes far heavier than its own weight. As one piles on another, they blend into a vague blob, and all the irritable person is aware of is “nervousness.”

When our emotional wellness is out of kilter, we tend to be a nuisance to the people around us.

Rachel consulted her doctor because she was a bundle of nerves. He sent her to me because he believed that her “nerves” were caused by an emotional rather than a physical problem. In other words, she was not adjusting well to people or events in her life. This is commonly called a “mental health” problem.

George Preston, in his classic book, The Substance of Mental Health, said the essential quality for mental health is to live (1) within the limits of one’s natural abilities, (2) with other human beings, (3) happily, (4) productively, and (5) without being a nuisance.1 I love this last statement! “Without being a nuisance.” How many people do you know that can go about their daily lives “without being a nuisance”? When our emotional wellness is out of kilter, we tend to be a nuisance to the people around us.

Identifying What Is Really Wrong

As we interact with friends, coworkers, spouses, and children, what is truly inside of us will be revealed. If we are constantly irritable, we may eventually experience body aches and pains, tiredness, nervousness, and/or more serious symptoms. The mind can become weighed down by burdens, real or perceived. The irritants may be small, vague ones or big, identifiable ones. A person may say, “I’m anxious,” “I’m angry,” or “I’m exhausted.” Maybe they can’t tell you any particular thing that is bothering them. But they know something is, and once in a while one particular sore will fester until it breaks open.

This uneasiness typifies our society today. The crime rate continues to grow; juvenile delinquency continues to increase; racial violence and dangerous international tension continue to escalate. Many hospital beds are said to be occupied by persons having mental or emotional difficulties. Record rates are being recorded for divorce, drug addiction, and alcoholism. But these are only bulges of a weak inner tube.

Millions of people are suffering from chronic worry, hypertension, prejudice, guilt, hatred, fear, and the fear of failure. In their struggle for inner peace, many turn to the quick solution of alcohol and drugs.

An alarming number of people suffering from these ailments are professing Christians. Unfortunately, the person who knows Christ as Savior is not immune to mental or emotional problems, they are as susceptible to tension and anxiety as the non-Christian working beside them at the office or living next door.

If you are struggling with a difficulty, you are not alone. You are not the only one facing a problem, even though you share your inner conflict with no one.

“My problem is so simple, you think. “How can I talk about it? I can see that I’m mad at my wife. But when I think of the inconsequential things over which I’m mad, I get confused. Why should I lose my temper over an appointment she forgot to tell me about, or why would I leave the house upset because she decided to paint the dining room red even though I told her I wanted it to stay the same? But the way I ammy reactions to life at home, at work, at church, and with my relativescauses me to lose sleep at night, to lash out at the children, to say things I don’t mean. I think thoughts that surprise me. I tell myself, ‘This can’t be me.’”

You can see the vague outline of your problem, but you cannot figure it out. You look at a skyscraper and may get the impression that some magician has had a hand in putting together this magnificent, massive structure. But if you had seen it being erected, you would know it was built of relatively small pieces of material—a length of steel, a pane of glass, a copper pipe, a bolt, a weld, a switch, the particles that make up concrete. The problems you face are constructed quite similarly.

While living in the shadow of your problems, you look on them as massive, unexplainable. As you dismantle them to see what they’re made of, you’re a little embarrassed to find their components are so simple and ordinary. So you do nothing. Nothing, that is, until the problems overwhelm you. Then those who know you say, “He blew up,” or “She’s upset,” or “He’s out of control.”

How widespread is emotional disturbance? Statistics tell us that for every person admitted to a mental health facility, at least a dozen are outside, groping in a half-real world.

Many people are sick. Ulcers are eating their stomachs; chronic headaches are driving them to distraction; chest pains have them frightened nearly to death. So not only are they mentally confused, but physically ill. And because they are ill, their conditions are assumed to be in the realm of the medical physician. After all, when people can’t sleep because of the pain in their necks or their stomachs won’t hold food, the help of medicine certainly seems called for.

It is important that we address our emotional ills in order to be healed of our physical ills.

Ours is the age of anxiety, the age of the tranquilizer. However, it is important to embrace the fact that it is possible that our physical ills are the result of some type of emotional ill. In the late 1950s W.C. Alvarez, of the Mayo Clinic, said,

“Even after 53 years of practicing medicine, I still keep marveling at the fact that so many people whose discomforts are nervous in origin have failed to see any connection between their physical ills and the severe emotional crises that they have been going through. A thousand times when I have drawn from some nervously ill patient his story of sorrow, strain, great worry, or paralyzing indecision, he has looked at me puzzled and asked “Could it be that?” Like so many people he has never realized that many illnesses—even severe ones—are produced by painful emotion.”2

A lot has changed since the 1950s in mental health care, treatment, and exposure, but one thing has not changed: the relationship of our physical health to our mental health. It is important that we address our emotional ills in order to be healed of our physical ills.

Orval Mowrer, atheistic psychologist and professor of Johns Hopkins University and the University of Illinois, one-time professor at Harvard, one-time professor at Yale, and one-time President of the American Psychologist Association, wrote,

“The only way to resolve the paradox of self-hatred and self-punishment is to help the individual see he deserves something better. As long as he remains hard of heart and unrepentant, his conscience will hold him in the viselike grip of neurotic rigidity and suffering. But if at length the individual confesses his past stupidities and errors and makes what poor attempts he can at restitution, then the conscience will forgive and relax its stern hold and the individual will be free, “well.” But here too we encounter difficulty, because human beings do not change radically until they first acknowledge their sins, but it is hard for one to make such an acknowledgment unless he has “already changed.” In other words, the full realization of deep worthlessness is a severe ego “insult,” and one must have a new source of strength to endure it.”3

This is a purely secular way to discuss the problem and it is interesting that several pages later in the same article, Mowrer says this,

“For several decades we psychologists have looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and we have acclaimed our freedom from it as epic making. But at length we have discovered to be free in this sense to have the excuse of being sick rather than being sinful is to also court the danger of becoming lost. In becoming amoral, ethically neutral and free, we have cut the very roots of our being, lost our deepest sense of selfhood and identity. And with neurotics themselves, asking, “Who am I? What is my deepest destiny? And what does living really mean?”4

Mowrer is calling our attention to one of the great barriers to finding relief from anxiety and guilt—a sense of worthlessness that is indeed a severe ego insult. We tend to shrink away from the truth about ourselves. We do not want to acknowledge our sin. Mowrer clearly describes our tendency to wander away from sensible and righteous behavior. We all act stupidly and make errors. Dr. Mowrer sees our salvation in squaring our past stupidities and errors with our own consciences by making attempts at restitution. Unfortunately, human relief is not the same as God’s forgiveness, cleansing, and renewal.

God’s Answer

The struggle for peace is just that—a struggle. And it requires that you recognize and deal with the sin that is causing your problem. Acts 3:19 tells us, “Repent of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped away. Then times of refreshment will come from the presence of the Lord.” Paul Tournier, a Christian psychiatrist in Switzerland, says everyone experiences guilt feelings and seeks to escape them by self-justification and repression of conscience. “To tear men from this impossible situation and to make them capable once more of receiving grace, God must therefore first of all awaken within them the repressed guilt.”5

Sometimes, Tournier explains, this “awakening” comes only through severe dealings which are necessary to lead us to the experience of repentance and grace. He writes, “For a man crushed by the consciousness of his guilt, the Bible offers the certainty of pardon and grace.”6

The aim of “operation severity,” Tournier says, “is not the crushing of the sinner but, on the contrary, his salvation. For that, God must pull him out of the vicious circle of his natural attempts at self-justification.”7

The struggle for peace requires that you recognize and deal with the sin that is causing your problem.

The Bible reminds us that “everyone has sinned” (Romans 3:23) and “no one is righteous” (Romans 3:10). The Bible also says our sins are against God. As the psalmist so eloquently said, “Against you, and you alone, have I sinned” (Psalm 51:4). It is your sin that comes between you and God.

This is where the Gospel comes in. The apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). To the Ephesians, Paul exclaimed, “Now all of us can come to the Father through the same Holy Spirit because of what Christ has done for us” (Ephesians 2:18).

Jesus explained to his disciples, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). He also said, “I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends” (Revelation 3:20).

If you sense a stirring in your heart and have never done so, ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins and to come into your life. He will forgive you, and give you access to our heavenly Father. Then, and only then will you be able to ask for God’s supernatural peace.

In coming to terms with yourself, you must consider your relationships to the people and events in your life. Because your mental health is related to your attitudes toward people, it is not a matter primarily for the medical physician. The Bible holds the key to experiencing peace. God’s Word deals with one’s relationships with others, with standards of conduct, with emotions, with the deep issues of life, with the heart of a man before God. The struggle for peace is a spiritual matter, involving your soul or spirit and how you react to the things that come your way. The source of peace involves your relationship to God.

The Bible gives us a picture of a person who draws on God’s strength for their emotional wellness:

But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things! —Galatians 5:22–23

You were cleansed from your sins when you obeyed the truth, so now you must show sincere love to each other as brothers and sisters. Love each other deeply with all your heart. —1 Peter 1:22

When God’s people are in need, be ready to help them. Always be eager to practice hospitality. —Romans 12:13

Make me truly happy by agreeing wholeheartedly with each other, loving one another, and working together with one mind and purpose.
—Philippians 2:2

It is time to address the issues in your life and to embrace the life and peace God has for you.

Reflection Questions

  1. What are some of the stressors in your life that are keeping you from experiencing peace?
  2. Who are the people in your life that are currently a “nuisance”? If you are honest, when are you a “nuisance” to others?
  3. What physical symptoms are you currently experiencing that may possibly be from emotional issues?
  4. What type of response do you have to the idea that some of your feelings and experiences may be because of the sin in your life?
  5. On a scale of 1-10, how open are you to addressing the real issues in your life?

Take One Action Step

Ask God to open your heart and mind to the changes you need to embrace in your life.

65711 Notes

Endnotes

Chapter 1

  1. George Preston, The Substance of Mental Health (New York and Toronto: Farrer & Rinehart, 1943), 112.
  2. Walter Alvarez, Live at Peace with Your Nerves (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1958), 5–6.
  3. Orval Mowrer, “Sin, the Lesser of Two Evils,” American Psychologist 15 (1960): 301.
  4. Ibid., 304.
  5. Paul Tournier, Guilt and Grace (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 145.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid., 146.

Chapter 4

  1. Karl Menninger, Love Against Hate (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1942) 9.
  2. Mowrer, “Sin, the Lesser of Two Evils,” 303, emphasis in original.

Chapter 7

  1. O. Spurgeon English, “The Autonomic Nervous System.” Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, n.d.
  2. Ibid.
  3. O. Surgeon English, “Psychosomatic Disorders of the Heart.” Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, n.d.
  4. O. Spurgeon English, “The Emotional Cause of Symptoms” Sandoz Pharmaceuticals. n.d.
  5. S.I. McMillen, None of These Diseases (Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1963) 73–74.
  6. Edward Strecker and Kenneth Appel, Discovering Ourselves (New York: Macmillan) 12.
  7. McMillan, None of these Diseases, 111.
  8. Strecker and Appel, Discovering Ourselves, 204.

Chapter 10

  1. Smiley Blanton, “How to Handle Temptation,” Reader’s Digest, May 1961, 188.
  2. Elisabeth Elliot, Discipline: The Glad Surrender (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell, 1982) 142.
  3. Blanton, “How to Handle Temptation,” 188.