The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel

huge leap by mere chance to create the whole system at once.
    “Of course, this forces the question: how did the biochemical machine arise? Behe says maybe these biological systems look designed because they really were designed. After all, whenever we see irreducibly complex systems and we know how they arose, invariably a designer was the cause.”
    “How strong of an argument do you think that is?” I asked.
    “I think it’s very strong,” he replied with a smile. “And you see that in the weak objections that are proposed by Darwinists. And again, that’s just one more example. The next one would be the Cambrian explosion, which is yet another striking piece of evidence for design in the history of life.”
    I told him that in a previous interview Jonathan Wells had already explained the basics of Biology’s Big Bang. “He talked about it primarily in terms of being an argument against Darwinism,” I said.
    “Indeed, it is,” Meyer replied. “You have between twenty and thirty-five completely novel body plans that come online in the Cambrian. You have a huge jump in complexity, it’s sudden, and you have no transitional intermediates.
    “But this is also affirmative evidence for design, because in our experience information invariably is the result of conscious activity. Here we have the geologically sudden infusion of a massive amount of new biological information needed to create these body plans, far beyond what any Darwinian mechanism can produce. Darwinism simply can’t account for it; design is a better explanation.
    “Think about how suddenly these new body plans emerged. As one paleontologist said, ‘What I want to know from my biology friends is just how fast does this evolution have to happen before they stop calling it evolution?’ Darwin said nature takes no sudden leaps. Yet here’s a huge leap—which is what intelligent agents cause. Consequently, the Cambrian explosion provides not just a negative case against Darwinian evolution, but also a compelling positive argument for design.”
    “All right,” I said, “I asked for half a dozen examples. What would be the sixth?”
    Meyer thought for a moment. “I’d say human consciousness certainly supports a theistic view of human nature,” he said. “Judaism and Christianity clearly teach that we are more than just matter—we’re not a ‘computer made of meat,’ in the words of Marvin Minsky, but we’re made in God’s image.
    “We have the capacity for self-reflection, for representational art, for language, for creativity. Science can’t account for this kind of consciousness merely from the interaction of physical matter in the brain. Where did it come from? Again, I think theism provides the best explanation.”
    Meyer scooted to the edge of his chair. “So what we have here,” he said, wrapping up his impromptu presentation in a tone of urgency, “is an ensemble of half a dozen evidences that point to a transcendent, intelligent cause. This is mind-boggling stuff! Scientists in the nineteenth century weren’t aware of these things when they said naturalism accounts for everything. Thanks to the discoveries of the last five decades, we know a lot more today.”
    “Based on the evidence you’ve mentioned,” I said, “how do you complete the case for God?”
    “First, theism, with its concept of a transcendent Creator, provides a more causally adequate explanation of the Big Bang than a naturalistic explanation can offer,” he said. “The cause of the universe must transcend matter, space, and time, which were brought into existence with the Big Bang. The Judeo-Christian God has precisely this attribute of transcendence. Yet naturalism, by definition, denies the existence of any entity beyond the closed system of nature.
    “The fine-tuning of the physical laws and constants of the universe and the precise configuration of its initial conditions, dating back to the very origin of the universe itself, suggest the