Did Jesus Really Mean It? — “Cut Off Your Hand If It Sins” | White.org.nz
The Sermon on the Mount
Did Jesus Really Mean It? “Cut Off Your Hand If It Sins”
Some people in church history actually did it. Most Christians quietly skip the verse. Who got it right — and what was Jesus really saying?
⏱ 3–5 min readMatthew 5
“And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
Matthew 5:30
The first time I read this, one question came to mind: is Jesus joking?
Throughout church history, some people took this literally — they actually cut off their hands, convinced they were obeying Jesus. Most Christians today quietly skip past the verse without quite knowing why. So who got it right? And if the literal reading is wrong, what did Jesus actually mean?
Here’s the answer: Jesus was being completely serious. He meant every word. But what He meant is something far more unsettling — and far more liberating — than either a literal command or a throwaway figure of speech.
What Jesus Actually Demanded
The hand and the eye don’t appear in isolation. They sit in the middle of Matthew 5, where Jesus delivers a series of demands that build on each other — each one tightening the law far beyond anyone’s expectation:
😡
Anger = MurderDon’t just avoid killing — don’t even get angry without cause. Anger alone puts you in danger of judgment.
👁️
A Glance = AdulteryLook at someone with desire, and you’ve already committed adultery — in your heart.
🤝
No Oaths, No Divorce, No RetaliationLet your yes mean yes. No exceptions for divorce. If someone strikes you, turn the other cheek.
❤️
Love Your Enemies — From the HeartNot tolerance. Genuine love. And genuine forgiveness — because pretending doesn’t count (Matthew 18:35).
And He closes the whole thing with this:
“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” — Matthew 5:48
Not “do your best.” Not “try hard and God will fill in the gap.” Be perfect. As God is perfect.
The Mirror, Not the To-Do List
Here’s the question that should follow: if no one can actually keep this standard, why did Jesus give it?
Jesus knew human nature better than anyone. He wasn’t setting an impossible bar out of cruelty or naivety. He was holding up a mirror — and the mirror shows something we don’t want to see.
“Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” — James 2:10
One flash of lust. One moment of unforgiveness. One grudge still quietly held. By God’s accounting, that is the same as breaking everything. Which means it’s not just the right hand that needs cutting off. It’s both hands. Both eyes. Every part of us.
The Pharisee and the Tax Collector
The Pharisee stood tall in prayer. The tax collector could barely look up. Yet only one went home justified.
The Pharisees were the most religiously serious people of their day — fasting, tithing, praying publicly, keeping every visible rule. Jesus called them whitewashed tombs and said that unless your righteousness surpassed theirs, you wouldn’t enter the kingdom of heaven. So who did get it right?
The Pharisee
“God, I thank you that I am not like other people… I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.” (Luke 18:11–12)
The Tax Collector
“God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” (Luke 18:13)
Jesus said the tax collector — the known sinner, the social outcast — went home justified. Not because of anything he promised to do. He simply saw the truth about himself and threw himself entirely on God’s mercy.
James Tissot — The Pharisees Question Jesus. Their confidence in their own righteousness blinded them to the one standing right in front of them.
The thief crucified next to Jesus had the same nothing to offer. No time to reform. No good deeds in reserve. He simply recognised who Jesus was — and Jesus said: today you will be with me in paradise.
What the Cross Changes
On the cross, Jesus said: “It is finished.” Not “it is started.” Not “your part is still outstanding.” Finished.
Paul writes in Galatians 5:2 — if you try to earn your standing before God through your own performance, Christ’s sacrifice profits you nothing. You can’t mix grace and works. Either Jesus paid it all, or you’re still paying. And you can’t afford it.
The Gospel is not that Jesus helps you reach God’s standard. It’s that Jesus met God’s standard — perfectly, on your behalf — and absorbed the full penalty you owed for every way you never did.
God’s standard is perfection. No human being has ever met it. So God sent Jesus to meet it — and to receive the punishment our failure deserved. The only thing required of us is to stop pretending we can pay what we owe, and to trust that He already has.
Do Creationists Reject All Evolution? Not Quite. — FingerofthomasFingerofthomasApologetics · Science & Faith
Evolution & Creation
Do Creationists Reject All Evolution? Not Quite.
Most people — including many pastors — have a fundamental misunderstanding about what creationists actually believe. Here’s what the science really says.
5 min read·Science & Faith·fingerofthomas.org
DNA: the most sophisticated information system ever discovered. Where it came from is the real question at the heart of the evolution debate.
“Do creationists really refuse to accept any change in species at all?”
— A minister, with genuine bewilderment
I was stunned. Not by the question itself, but by what it revealed — that one of the most basic facts about creationist science is almost completely unknown to the general public.
So let’s clear this up.
Yes, Creationists Accept Microevolution
Creationists fully accept that species change and diversify over time within certain boundaries. Different dog breeds, different wolf varieties, different species of cats — creationists believe these all descended from common ancestors through genetic variation. Most creation scientists think God didn’t create every individual species separately, but created distinct kinds — roughly equivalent to the biological family or genus level — and that species diversified from there.
(Personally, I’m not a fan of the word “microevolution,” since the word “evolution” implies progress or information gain — and what we’re actually seeing is more like reshuffling and reduction. But since the term is widely used, we’ll go with it.)
The Bible Itself Records a Case of It
Here’s something that might surprise you: the Bible actually documents what we would today call a genetic variation — in 2 Samuel 21:20.
2 Samuel 21:20
“There was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number.”
This is polydactyly — the presence of extra digits — a condition caused by a real, observable genetic variation. It’s heritable, it appears in certain family lines, and it’s been documented throughout history. The Bible isn’t making a theological point about it; it’s simply recording a fact of natural variation among human beings. The kind — humanity — hasn’t changed. But variation within that kind? The Bible noticed it long before Darwin.
How Does Variety Come from One Ancestor?
It’s simpler than you might think — and it doesn’t require any new genetic information.
Genetic Sorting — No New Information Required
ParentsAa Bb Cc×Aa Bb Cc
OffspringAA BB ccaa bb CCAa Bb Cc
Over timeaa only→“a” variant lost forever
These offspring look and behave differently — but no new genetic information was added. Some was lost. This is how creationists understand post-Flood diversification: original created kinds carried rich, varied genetic information, and as populations separated and bred in isolation, that variation sorted itself into the distinct species we see today.
So What’s the Real Argument About?
The debate isn’t about whether species change. It’s about whether that same process can explain how bacteria became humans.
Creationists say: no. Here’s why.
Every example of “evolution” we actually observe involves either reshuffling of existing genetic information — like our Aa Bb Cc example — or loss of genetic information, like a fish losing its eyes in a dark cave. The polydactyly in 2 Samuel is the same category: a variation, not an invention. Extra digits didn’t come from nowhere — the genetic instructions for digit formation were already present and got expressed differently.
Typhlichthys subterraneus — the blind cavefish. It “evolved” by losing its eyes after generations in total darkness. This is the opposite of what macroevolution requires: it is a reduction, not a gain, of genetic information.
What we have never observed is new genetic information being created from nothing — the kind of gain that would be required to go from a single-celled organism to a human being.
“A business that continually loses money cannot become profitable simply by losing money more often.”
Lee Spetner
Physicist, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory · Not by Chance!, 1997
The Information Problem
Here’s a simple analogy. Take the Bible and the Quran. You can split the Bible into Old and New Testaments — that’s rearranging. You can mix verses from both books — that’s recombining. Evolutionists call this kind of change “evolution.”
But creationists ask the prior question: how did those books get written in the first place?
You can rearrange existing information endlessly. But getting meaningful information — a book, a genome, a functioning cell — to arise from random noise is a completely different claim.
Consider: if 10 billion people each flipped a coin once per second, it would take roughly 4 trillion years to get 100 heads in a row by pure chance. And the probability of human-level genetic complexity arising randomly makes that coin flip look trivially easy.
The evolutionary story asks us to believe that random processes wrote the most sophisticated code in the known universe. Creationists think that code required an Author.
✅
Creationists accept variation within created kinds — dogs from wolves, lions from a common cat ancestor, six-fingered humans from the same human kind.
❌
Creationists reject the idea that random mutation and natural selection can generate the complex information required to go from microbes to man.
🔍
The core question isn’t “do species change?” — it’s “where did the information come from in the first place?”
Which explanation strikes you as more rational?
Random processes writing the most sophisticated code in the known universe — or a code that required an Author?
In the Beginning: What Science Tells Us About the Start of Everything
April 9, 2026fingerofthomas4 min read
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
— Genesis 1:1
No hedging. No qualifications. Just a flat declaration that time, space, and matter
had a starting point — and that someone caused it.
A century ago, mainstream scientists would have laughed. The prevailing consensus held
that the universe was eternal and static — it had always existed, and always would.
The idea of a cosmic beginning felt uncomfortably close to religion, and scientists
were openly hostile to it.
Albert Einstein himself discovered that his theory of general relativity implied an
expanding — and therefore non-eternal — universe. He didn’t like the implication.
So he quietly inserted a correction term into his equations, the “cosmological
constant,” to force the universe to stay static.
But the evidence kept coming.
The Evidence Piles Up
Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaître used Einstein’s own equations to argue
the universe was expanding. Edwin Hubble’s observations confirmed that galaxies were
moving apart — which, traced backward in time, pointed to a single explosive beginning.
Then in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson stumbled upon the cosmic microwave
background radiation — the faint afterglow of the Big Bang — and the debate was
effectively over.
The universe had a beginning. Time, space, and matter all came into existence at a finite moment in the past.
The 2003 BGV Theorem — developed by physicists Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin —
mathematically demonstrated that any universe which has been expanding on average
cannot be eternal in the past. It had to have a beginning.
Even multiverse models cannot escape this conclusion.
So science and Genesis agree on the first point: there was a beginning.
The question is — what caused it?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Philosopher William Lane Craig calls this his most compelling evidence for God.
The logic is elegantly simple:
The Kalam Argument
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
∴ The universe has a cause.
The structure is logically airtight. No serious thinker disputes the form.
The debate is over whether the premises hold.
Premise 1 asks: has anything ever simply popped into existence
without a cause? Not in everyday experience. Not in any verified scientific
observation. Even quantum fluctuations — which physicists sometimes cite —
occur within an existing framework of physical laws and energy.
“Nothing” that contains physical laws is not really nothing.
Premise 2 is now scientific consensus, for the reasons outlined above.
The conclusion follows: the cause of the universe must be outside the
universe — beyond time, space, and matter. It must be timeless, immaterial, and
extraordinarily powerful. That is a remarkably precise description of what
theologians have always called God.
The Numbers Are Staggering
The extraordinary order of the cosmos raises a question that cannot be ignored.
Here’s the part that stops people cold.
1010123
Penrose’s Precision
British physicist Roger Penrose calculated that for the universe to begin in
the precise low-entropy state that allows stars, galaxies, and life to exist,
the initial conditions had to be fine-tuned to 1 part in this number —
a figure so large it defies human imagination. Penrose concluded this cannot
be explained by any natural process.
A nuclear explosion destroys everything in its path. The Big Bang produced a
universe of extraordinary order and complexity. That asymmetry demands an explanation.
Penrose concluded it points to intentional design.
Genesis Got There First
The Hebrew title of Genesis is Bereshit — literally, “In the beginning.”
Written millennia ago, it described not merely a creation event, but the beginning
of time itself. Science spent centuries catching up to what Genesis stated in
its very first word.
The Kalam argument doesn’t prove the God of the Bible specifically — but it
powerfully dismantles the claim that the universe needs no explanation. It points
to a Creator who is timeless, immaterial, and incomprehensibly powerful.
That’s who Genesis calls God. And Genesis said it first.
Go Deeper
The Physics of “Nothing”
What do Lawrence Krauss, Alexander Vilenkin, and Sean Carroll actually
admit about the beginning — and why do their explanations fall short?
Our full deep dive unpacks the science behind the argument.
Caspar David Friedrich — Wanderer above the Sea of Fog, 1818 (Public domain)
Picture a five-year-old girl, crying alone on a street corner. She’s lost. Before anyone can find her, a stranger takes her, kills her, and abandons her body.
Was that evil?
Almost everyone answers yes — immediately, without deliberation. But here’s the harder question: why? And what happens to that answer when we push it to its logical limit?
THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
Imagine a terrorist group develops a weapon capable of killing nearly everyone on Earth. They use it. Seven billion people die. The one million survivors unanimously declare the massacre morally good. They pass laws celebrating it. They build monuments to it. Resistance is outlawed.
Is the genocide now good?
Go further. Among the survivors, a 10-year-old girl is raped daily. The majority votes it righteous. Those who try to stop it are arrested and punished as criminals.
Is that rape now morally acceptable?
Most people — atheists included — feel viscerally that the answer is no. Genocide doesn’t become good because a majority approves it. A child’s suffering is not justified by a vote.
But in a purely atheistic, evolutionary worldview: on what basis can you say so?
THE PROBLEM WITH ATHEISTIC MORALITY
If there is no God — no transcendent moral authority above humanity — then morality is simply what human beings collectively decide. There is no court of appeal beyond the crowd.
Darwin himself saw the uncomfortable implication. In The Descent of Man, he wrote:
"If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely
the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our
unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to
kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile
daughters; and no one would think of interfering."
Darwin’s point: moral intuitions are not universal truths. They are the product of evolutionary conditions. Change the conditions, change the morality.
Richard Dawkins agrees. In River Out of Eden, he writes that the universe “has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
If that is true, then our condemnations of genocide and rape are not moral facts. They are preferences — no more objectively binding than a taste in music.
THE HISTORICAL TEST
Atheists passionately condemn slavery, the Holocaust, colonial genocide, and Japan’s wartime atrocities. These condemnations are morally correct. But they are philosophically inconsistent with atheism.
Under an evolutionary worldview, Japan’s military was simply a stronger organism exploiting weaker ones — the engine of natural selection doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. The collaborators who aided Japan for personal gain were optimizing for survival. The patriots who died resisting were organisms that failed to adapt.
That conclusion is monstrous. But it follows logically from a worldview in which morality has no grounding beyond human consensus.
WHAT YOUR GUT ALREADY KNOWS
Here is where the argument lands:
If you read this and thought — even for a moment — “No. Even if every last survivor on Earth declared that genocide righteous, it would still be wrong” — then you already believe in objective morality. You believe some things are wrong regardless of what anyone decides.
That intuition is not an evolutionary accident. It is not cultural conditioning. It points to a moral standard that exists above and independent of human opinion.
That standard needs an author. A transcendent, personal moral lawgiver. What Christians call God.
The alternative — that morality is nothing more than majority vote — leads to a place almost no one is willing to go: a world where no atrocity is permanently wrong, because any atrocity can, in principle, be voted righteous.
You already know that’s not the world we live in. The moral argument for God’s existence simply asks you to follow that knowledge where it leads.
WANT TO GO DEEPER?
This post touches the surface of one of philosophy’s most debated questions. For a fuller treatment — including the formal structure of the moral argument, common objections, and what the Bible says about where morality comes from — read the deep-dive version on this site.
Why Do People Believe in Christianity in the 21st Century — an Age of Science?
Many people call the 21st century the age of science. And indeed, people place enormous expectations in science and trust what scientists say. As a result, Christianity — along with religion in general and theism — is naturally perceived as irrational, seemingly standing on the opposite side of mainstream science.
I am, by temperament, a person who leans toward reason rather than emotion. I do not enjoy things that are illogical or that cannot be adequately explained. For the past 15 years, I have been investigating and researching whether truth can be explained through reason.
And I can say with confidence: the Bible — historically, scientifically, and philosophically — is more rational than any theory currently championed by mainstream science, and it explains the world better. With every new discovery, that conviction only grows stronger.
This website is for those who believe in God but lack assurance, and for those who do not believe but sincerely want to find the truth. It explains, through objective evidence, why God is real and alive. I am neither a scientist nor a theologian. If you are willing to accept one side or the other simply based on reputation, then you do not need to read further. But if you are willing to examine the objective evidence available to us through reason and logic, I recommend this website with confidence.
This website can only help those who genuinely desire to find the truth — not those who argue for the sake of arguing. Of course, those determined to deny God may read through this website and cry out inwardly that it is wrong. But they will not be able to refute its content through logic.
I go by “fingerofthomas” on the internet, where I engage in Christian apologetics. Christian apologetics is an academic discipline that defends the truth of the Bible using objective facts found outside of Scripture. For example, Christians preach and evangelize based on the Word of the Bible. This is precious, and we must proclaim God’s Word in dependence on the Holy Spirit. However, among those who hear that Word, some may not understand the Bible, may lack conviction, or may even be convinced that the Bible is not true. Apologetics speaks to those people — explaining, through scientific, philosophical, archaeological, and other rational, logical, and objective disciplines and evidence, that the Bible is the Word of God, that it is truth, and that it should be the foundation for our lives and worldview.
This website addresses the debate between atheism — the claim that there is no Creator — and theism — the claim that there is, specifically Christian theism, which holds that this Creator is the God described in the Bible. Before diving into that debate, however, there are several widely accepted but flawed assumptions and arguments that need to be addressed first.
Flawed Arguments Accepted by the Public
When debating atheists — even when watching debates among the highest caliber of intellectuals — you can frequently observe irrational rebuttals that the public uncritically accepts as legitimate. The most representative example is something like this: “I don’t have an answer for this right now, but science is always advancing, so in the future science will prove my claim!” Many atheistic scientists try to move on with this kind of response, and because these are renowned scientists, many people trust it and move on. But this is neither scientific nor rational.
Science as a discipline speaks through conclusions drawn from repeated observation, research, and experimentation that have already been conducted. No matter how famous a scientist may be, if they are assuming some future result that is yet unknown, that is not science. Of course, my own claims could be disproven by some future discovery. And their claims could turn out to be true in the future. But rational debate means making arguments based on the evidence currently available to us. If we resort to invoking a future that may or may not favor us, then we are merely deciding truth by majority vote based on who has stronger wishes. Truth is not determined by majority rule.
Similarly, there are cases where people use unproven hypotheses or mere possibilities as rebuttals. The debate between atheism and theism is not a contest of possibilities. It is fundamentally a debate about what actually happened historically — about what really took place. Presenting unproven hypotheses as evidence obstructs rational discourse. The atheist camp demands historically verified facts from theists, yet excuses itself from the same standard — claiming that a mere scenario suggesting something was possible is enough to validate their position. Many of the claims we accept as historical fact are actually nothing more than such hypotheses, and with new discoveries, these hypotheses keep changing and disappearing.
Another error is imposing unproven assumptions that mainstream science makes but that creationists do not accept. For example, mainstream science presupposes naturalism and materialism. Naturalism is the assumption that all phenomena in this world are non-supernatural — that is, no Creator or intelligent designer was involved. Materialism is the assumption that there is no other dimension such as a soul, and that everything is made up of matter alone. These stand in direct opposition to creationism and are assumptions that creationists reject, yet debates are sometimes conducted as if these assumptions are self-evidently true.
One of theism’s central arguments is precisely that naturalism and materialism are wrong — or that they are impossible. If these are assumed to be true from the very start, then no meaningful conversation can take place. Atheists must present reasons and evidence for why naturalism and materialism are true; they cannot simply impose them.
Another error is distortion.
There are generally two types of distortion. The first is distorting the opponent’s argument. This is a technique used in losing debates to confuse the audience so they do not realize which side is losing. The second type of distortion involves redefining terms or twisting the true meaning of one’s own claims. This is best understood through an example. Perhaps the most representative case of definitional distortion involves the word “Nothing” in Big Bang theory. After the discovery that the universe — once believed to be eternal — must have had a beginning, scientists proposed various hypotheses but failed to explain that beginning. Eventually, they arrived at the claim that the universe came from “Nothing.” Since this defies common sense and science alike, attempts have been made to change and distort the definition of the word “Nothing” — a word that everyone understands in its literal sense — to mean something other than literally nothing.
This is just one example. A careful analysis of debates reveals that such instances are remarkably common.
Finally, there is the method of selectively applying a condition or phenomenon to the opponent’s theory while exempting one’s own. This might be described as a double standard — applying one rule to others while excusing oneself from the same rule.
These kinds of errors are obviously wrong and should be avoided. Detailed examples of each will be provided as we explore each topic throughout this website.
Whether you are a theist or an atheist, I ask that you, the reader, serve as a fair judge and determine whose arguments are more persuasive.
In the realm of modern science and atheistic determinism, a startling proclamation is gaining ground: “Free will is an illusion.” Prominent figures like Sam Harris argue that human beings are nothing more than “biological puppets,” dancing to the tune of physical laws and chemical reactions.
But are we truly just pre-programmed biological machines, or is there something more to the human experience? Let’s dive into the logic behind these claims and why the “death of free will” might be greatly exaggerated.
1. The 0.5-Second Gap: Libet’s Famous Experiment
The “smoking gun” for those who deny free will is often an experiment conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s.
The Finding: Libet discovered that a specific brain signal (known as the “Readiness Potential”) occurs about 0.3 to 0.5 seconds before a person consciously decides to move their finger.
The Conclusion (by Determinists): They argue that since the brain starts the process before the mind is even aware of it, the “choice” is just an afterthought—a trick played by the brain to make us feel in control.
2. The Scientific Rebuttal: The Power of the “Free Won’t”
However, this interpretation ignores a crucial part of Libet’s own findings. Libet himself did not believe his experiment disproved free will. He observed that even after the brain prepares for an action, the conscious mind retains the power to veto that action in the final milliseconds.
In the English-speaking scientific community, this is often called “Free Won’t.” While our biology might suggest a path, our conscious mind holds the final “signing authority” to approve or reject that impulse. Preparation is not the same as a final command.
3. The Dangerous World Without Choice
If we accept that free will is non-existent, the pillars of our society begin to crumble:
The Collapse of Morality: If a criminal is merely a “meat computer” following a program, can we truly hold them responsible? If there is no choice, there is no guilt, and if there is no guilt, the entire concept of justice becomes meaningless.
The Death of Reason: Scientist J.B.S. Haldane famously noted a logical paradox: If my thoughts are merely the result of chemical reactions in my brain, then my belief that “determinism is true” is also just a chemical reaction. Why should I trust a chemical reaction to tell me the truth? Materialism, in denying free will, accidentally denies the validity of its own logic.
4. More Than Just “Meat Computers”
Reducing the human experience to mere matter and motion ignores the profound reality of our existence. We deliberate, we sacrifice, and we often act against our basic biological instincts for the sake of higher values.
Free will is not a “glitch” in our neural wiring; it is the very foundation of human dignity, love, and responsibility. We are not just spectators watching a movie of our lives; we are the directors.
Curious for more? Let’s dive deep with the button below!
“In the Beginning…” — The Scientific Accuracy of the Bible’s First Words
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)
The Hebrew word for “In the beginning,” Bereshit (בראשית), does not merely signify a start in time. It declares the simultaneous origin of time, space, and matter. Today, modern science is finally catching up to the profound truth hidden in this single sentence written thousands of years ago.
1. Science Once Scoffed at the Bible
Just 100 years ago, the mainstream scientific community believed the “Steady State Theory”—the idea that the universe was eternal, with no beginning and no end. They mocked the biblical account of a “beginning” as unscientific.
Einstein’s “Biggest Blunder”: When Einstein’s equations suggested an expanding universe, he was so uncomfortable with the implication of a beginning that he inserted a “Cosmological Constant” to force the universe into a static state.
The Turning Point: Later, the Hubble Telescope confirmed that galaxies are moving away from us. In 1965, the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation effectively ended the debate: the universe definitely had a beginning.
[!NOTE]
Key Insight: The Bible declared a beginning for the universe long before human instruments could prove it.
2. Can “Something” Come from “Nothing”?
Modern atheistic scientists often claim the universe arose “from nothing” to bypass the need for a Creator. However, there is a catch in their definition of “nothing.”
A Redefined “Nothing”: When these scientists say “nothing,” they usually mean a Quantum Vacuum—a field fluctuating with energy.
The Debt Analogy: Claiming a universe came from nothing because the total energy sums to zero is like saying a person with $1 billion in assets and $1 billion in debt has “nothing.” In reality, both the assets and the debt exist.
The Verdict: True “nothingness” (the absence of anything) cannot produce “something.” Only a transcendent cause outside of time and space can explain the transition from non-existence to existence.
3. Probability vs. Chaos: Can an Explosion Create Order?
The Big Bang is often described as a massive explosion. Common sense tells us that explosions result in chaos and destruction, not complex architecture.
The Law of Entropy: Thermodynamics dictates that systems move toward disorder over time. The odds of an explosion resulting in a functional, beautiful skyscraper are zero.
The Fine-Tuned Universe: Physicist Roger Penrose calculated the probability of our orderly universe occurring by chance as 1 in 10(10^123). This number is so large that it is mathematically equivalent to “impossible.”
Evidence of Design: The universe is not a byproduct of a random accident; it is a masterpiece of precision, fine-tuned to an unimaginable degree.
4. Returning to Common Sense
Many scientists observe the undeniable “appearance of design” in the cosmos but dismiss it as an “illusion of design.” They enter their labs with a pre-existing bias: that a supernatural Creator must be ruled out at all costs.
However, if we return to basic logic and common sense, the conclusion is clear:
The Universe had a beginning.
Something cannot come from nothing.
Complex order requires an Intelligent Designer.
The fact that Genesis accurately recorded the origin of the universe millennia ago is powerful evidence that the Bible is indeed the Word of God.
Recent research has announced that the first life on Earth appeared 4.3 billion years ago. [^1] Though not mentioned in the article, this finding must be deeply unsettling for the scientific community, which has yet to establish a convincing scientific theory for the spontaneous emergence of life. This is because their hypotheses, which rely on astronomically low probabilities, lose persuasive power the shorter the time between Earth’s formation and the emergence of life.
Meanwhile, NASA captured widespread public attention with its announcement that seven Earth-like planets had been discovered just 39 light-years away. [^2]
Professor Ignas Snellen, who participated in the peer review of the paper on these Earth-like planets, stated that while it remains unknown whether life exists on these planets, he added the following:
“One thing is certain: the small dwarf star TRAPPIST-1 burns hydrogen so slowly that its lifespan is expected to reach 10 trillion years… That is a long enough time for life to evolve.” [^2]
For humans, who live at most around 100 years, 10 trillion years is certainly a long time. But whether 10 trillion years is long enough for life to spontaneously arise is an entirely different question. In this article, I would like to discuss just how scientifically absurd the notion of the spontaneous generation of life truly is — a claim that is often spoken of as though it were a mere matter of common sense.
The Experiment on Spontaneous Generation of Life and Its Significance
In the 1950s, when understanding of life was still quite limited, Stanley Miller filled a glass tube with methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor — the conditions then believed to represent early Earth’s atmosphere — applied electrical shocks, and discovered that amino acids were produced inside. This finding led many people to leave the church, and atheism began to quietly raise its head. The thinking was: if life can arise on its own, then there is no need for God. However, by the 1960s, knowledge of early Earth’s environment had advanced, and it became clear that the early Earth could not have been the same environment Miller had used. Miller then applied electrical shocks under the newly understood conditions of early Earth, but the amino acids that had previously formed did not appear.
Of course, even if Miller’s experiment had succeeded in showing that amino acids could form naturally, that would be an entirely different conclusion from saying that life itself can arise spontaneously. The fact that soil can form naturally under certain conditions is no more an argument that an apartment building can assemble itself out of nothing. In fact, even if scientists were to place every molecule necessary for a living organism into a single test tube and wait, those molecules would not gather together and become a living creature. It is the same logic as putting every single component needed to build a smartphone into a container and shaking it — no matter how long or how hard you shake, they will not assemble themselves into a working phone.
So then, what is the probability of amino acids coming together to form a living organism?
The Odds of Amino Acids Becoming a Functional Protein
First, let us calculate the probability of a single protein forming by chance, since proteins are necessary for life to exist. If you have studied biology, you will know that there are 20 amino acids that help form proteins. Amino acids are made from groups of three DNA base pairs, and the type of amino acid is determined by the sequence and length of those base pairs. Some smaller proteins may contain fewer than 100 amino acids, while in some cases tens of thousands of amino acids are used. Though not precise, many scientists estimate that an average protein requires around 300 to 400 amino acids.
The critical question, then, is what the probability is that any given sequence of amino acids would fold into a functional protein. On this topic, molecular biologist Douglas Axe published a paper concluding that the probability of a protein 150 amino acids in length being functional is 1 in 10⁷⁷. [^3] But that is not all. There are additional conditions required for protein formation. The first is that each amino acid must be connected by a peptide bond. Peptide bonds form with roughly a 50% probability, so the chance that all 150 amino acids are connected by peptide bonds is 2⁻¹⁴⁹, approximately 10⁻⁴⁵. The second condition is that only L-type amino acids can be used, not D-type. Since the probability of an amino acid being L-type versus D-type is also around 50%, the probability that all amino acids are L-type is likewise 2⁻¹⁵⁰, approximately 10⁻⁴⁵.
If even a single D-type amino acid is mixed in, or if even one non-peptide bond is present between amino acids, the entire combination collapses and fails to form a protein. Therefore, the probability of a random combination of amino acids accidentally forming even a single protein — not a living organism, just one protein — is 10⁻⁷⁷ × 10⁻⁴⁵ × 10⁻⁴⁵ = 10⁻¹⁶⁷.
The spontaneous emergence of life over 10 trillion years is impossible.
This probability is also consistent with calculations previously made by evolutionary scientists. Carl Sagan, a scientist admired by many, calculated the probability of a protein 100 amino acids in length forming at 1 in 10¹³⁰. [^4] Professor Gerald Schroeder of MIT similarly calculated the probability of a protein 130 amino acids in length forming at 1 in 10¹⁷⁰. [^5]
Professor Snellen stated earlier that 10 trillion years would be sufficient time for life to evolve — but 10 trillion years is not even enough time for a single protein to form. For one protein to come into existence within 10 trillion years (10¹³ years), there would need to be approximately 10¹⁴⁷ protein-formation attempts every single second.
The critical point here is that everything we have been discussing so far concerns not a living organism, but a single protein. So what would be the probability of a living organism arising by chance?
The Minimum Conditions for the Simplest Life Form
In 2016, Craig Venter’s research team published findings on the simplest possible cell. [^6][^7] In 2010, they had first created a synthetic cell called Syn 1.0, which was a copy of an existing genome sequence. [^8] The team then attempted to build a cell entirely from scratch on their own, designing a cell with 480,000 base pairs and 471 genes — but they failed. Eventually, the team succeeded in creating the simplest cell yet, Syn 3.0, composed of 530,000 base pairs and 473 genes.
The team had tried to identify the genes essential for life by eliminating from Syn 1.0 all genes thought to be unnecessary for cell survival. At the outset of this research, they believed that as few as 256 genes would be sufficient to sustain life. [^9] But after decades of research, they identified 473 genes that could not be reduced any further, proving their initial prediction wrong. Interestingly, around 150 of those genes were clearly essential for survival, yet their specific functions remained completely unknown.
In any case, we do not know exactly how many proteins are encoded by each gene in the cell the team created, but to make the conditions as generous as possible, let us assume there is just one protein per gene. That means the minimum number of proteins required for life is 473. The fact that there were 531,000 base pairs implies an average of 374 amino acids per gene — but again, we will use the 150-amino-acid probability for our calculation.
The probability of an organism with 473 proteins arising by chance is 10⁻¹⁶⁷ × 473 = 10⁻⁷⁸,⁹⁹¹. Of course, this calculation already rests on the unrealistic assumption that simply having functional proteins is sufficient for life, without even accounting for the specific sequences those proteins must have. And a probability of this magnitude is one that simply cannot occur within the entire history of the universe.
This is why Craig Venter, the lead researcher of the team, stated: “We have shown how complex even the simplest life forms are. And these discoveries have humbled us.” [^9]
These kinds of findings and calculations are also entirely consistent with those of other scientists who have made similar estimates.
People Who Came to Believe in a Creator After Calculating the Probability of Life Arising
Sir Fred Hoyle was an astronomer who was active in the mid-20th century and one of the most prominent atheists of his time. However, together with his colleague Wickramasinghe, he calculated the probability of life arising naturally at 10⁻⁴⁰’⁰⁰⁰ — and became a theist. He stated: “If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing arrayed complexities were the products of an intelligence. I find no other way to come to this conclusion.” [^10]
Anthony Flew, the defining atheist of the 20th century who served as an idol to Richard Dawkins and many other atheists, similarly announced in 2004 that he had become a theist. In 1950, he had published a paper titled Theology and Falsification, which became the most widely cited philosophical publication of the following half-century.
In that paper, Flew argued three main positions: that the universe is eternal, has always existed, and will always exist; that life is the product of random chemical reactions; and that the existence of God is self-contradictory, and that evil and God cannot coexist. Yet he ultimately acknowledged that the immense complexity revealed through the advance of science could not be explained within an atheistic worldview, and came to accept that this world has a Creator.
Dean Kenyon, who led the field of chemistry in the 1970s, similarly set out to scientifically demonstrate that life had arisen naturally — and believed he could do so. But as science advanced, he found it increasingly impossible, and eventually abandoned evolutionary theory to become a creationist.
He had been one of the leading scientists in the field during the 1960s and 70s, but as he came to understand just how complex and intricate even the smallest cells and proteins are, he kept in mind two possible ways of explaining the origin of life through natural science: either explaining where the genetic binding originated, or demonstrating that proteins in a primordial ocean could combine amino acids into the correct sequence — with or without DNA, whether precisely or by chance.
Kenyon realized he could do neither. In the late 1970s, he abandoned all of his research that had sought to explain the origin of life through chemical evolution. And as subsequent findings continued to emerge about the importance of DNA, he came to recognize the absolute necessity of genetic information — and grew ever more convinced that his late change of position had been the right one.
How Do Evolutionists Explain the Origin of the First Life?
Despite all of this, many evolutionists still hold to an unsubstantiated belief that life arose naturally. So how do they explain the origin of the first life?
Many scientists openly admit that they cannot explain it. Richard Dawkins himself said in one interview: “Nobody knows how the first living matter came into existence!” [^11] They simply refuse to acknowledge a Creator on the grounds of the “God of the gaps” argument — the claim that just because I cannot explain something does not mean God did it.
Some scientists have also attempted to explain the origin of life through the multiverse. The prominent evolutionary biologist Eugene Koonin wrote a highly unusual paper in 2007. [^12]
In it, he calculated the probability of a single RNA replicase enzyme composed of 500 nucleotides forming by chance at 10⁻¹⁰¹⁸, and argued that a probability this low could never occur within the history of our universe. Yet Koonin then abruptly pivoted to argue that if there exists an infinite multiverse produced by eternal inflation, then even an astronomically improbable event like this would be not merely possible but inevitable — and on this basis proceeded to discuss the possibility of life arising naturally.
If an infinite multiverse is real, then events of unimaginable improbability must occur countless times.
Honestly, reading this paper, the only thought that came to mind was: how desperate must these people be to avoid acknowledging God, that such nonsensical reasoning could find its way into a published paper?
Of course, if an infinite multiverse exists, then any event of any probability — no matter how low — must inevitably occur somewhere. That much is logically true. But humans have never observed an infinite multiverse, nor can we ever observe one. What was shocking was that a paper in a biology journal could treat the multiverse as an established fact and build an argument upon it. The second problem is even more serious. Humans have never observed an event with a probability even as low as 10⁻⁵⁰ — which, while extraordinarily small, is still vastly higher than the probability of life arising. If one wishes to argue that a multiverse allows events of staggeringly low probability to occur, then at the very least there should be some observed instance of a comparably improbable event. All manner of seemingly impossible things that defy common sense should be occurring around us constantly.
And yet, the foremost evolutionary theorists make the claim — without any such observation whatsoever — that in an infinite multiverse, anything and everything must inevitably happen. I consider this to be deeply irresponsible propaganda.
I believe these individuals are fully aware of just how flawed and incoherent their own logic is. So why would such intelligent people insist on making arguments this untenable?
The True Motives of Atheists Who Refuse to Acknowledge God
In a debate with creationist Fuz Rana [^13], prominent evolutionary biologist Michael Ruse offered these closing remarks:
“I agree with Dr. Rana that the origin of life is a desperately difficult problem. I don’t think anyone is going to deny that. I agree with Dr. Rana that scientists today don’t have a full answer, or even an adequate answer. I agree with Dr. Rana that there are a lot of ‘bad boys’ in the field, as it were. There’s a lot of what Stephen Jay Gould used to call ‘just-so stories’ floating around.
Of course, at first it seemed like it would be easy. But as ten, fifteen, twenty years have gone by, it’s become clear that it’s much, much harder than anyone thought. Much harder — and I don’t think anyone would deny that today. So the question we have to ask is: what do we do now? Surrender and take a Biblical perspective… I always say — if you want to take a Biblical perspective, I can’t stop you. But you’re not doing science. The question we have to ask is: does science, at some point — what Dr. Rana calls a hybrid, though he might call it something different — does science point to miracles? I want to say no. No…
I would rather be a fool than surrender to the Bible.”
In these remarks, I believe the true inner motives of those who hold an atheistic worldview are laid completely bare. They are not seeking truth — they simply do not want to surrender before God.
No matter how clearly atheists observe that living organisms appear to be designed, they refuse to draw the conclusion that they were designed. Because they do not want to surrender to the Bible. Science as a discipline demands that we set aside our subjective views and preferences when interpreting observations — and yet these scientists are violating even that most foundational principle, denying the obvious conclusion that their own data points toward.
I can only marvel at the remarkable insight of Scripture — why the Bible says that acknowledging God is the beginning of knowledge, and why it says that those who deny God, though they declare themselves to be wise, have become fools.
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.” — Romans 1:20–22
To observe with your own eyes just how complex even the simplest living organism is — to see that it bears every appearance not of something that accumulated by random chance, but of something that was painstakingly and deliberately designed — and then to deny the very conclusions of your own observations: that is the work of a fool. And the complexity of life that science continues to reveal, the more it advances, is the most powerful evidence we have that the God who created this world is alive — that He made everything for us, and that He made us.
References
[^1]:Yonhap News, “Earth’s earliest life forms dated back to 4.3 billion years ago,” March 02, 2017.
[^2]:Maeil Business Newspaper, “Cluster of Earth-like planets discovered relatively close to the Sun,” February 23, 2017.
[^3]:Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology (JMB), June 18, 2004.
[^4]:Carl Sagan, Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI), MIT Press, 1973.
[^5]:Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom, 1997.
[^6]:Clyde A. Hutchison III et al., “Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome,” Science, March 25, 2016.
[^7]:Nature News, “Minimal cell raises stakes in race to harness synthetic life,” March 24, 2016.
[^8]:Gibson, D. G. et al., “Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome,” Science 329, 52–56, 2010.
[^10]:Fred Hoyle, “Evolution from Space,” Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, January 12, 1982.
[^11]:Richard Dawkins, Interview with Ben Stein, in the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, 2008.
[^12]:Eugene V. Koonin, “The Cosmological Model of Eternal Inflation and the Transition from Chance to Biological Evolution in the History of Life,” Biology Direct, May 31, 2007.
[^13]:Fuz Rana vs. Michael Ruse, “Debate on the Origin of Life,” May 16, 2013.
Ten Trillion Years — Is That Really Enough? | white.org.nz
Scientific Evidence
Ten Trillion Years — is that enough?
Scientists say it’s plenty of time for life to evolve by chance.
Is it really?
Quick Read6 minwhite.org.nz
Scroll to read
When NASA announced the discovery of seven Earth-like planets just 39 light-years away, one astronomy professor added: “TRAPPIST-1’s lifespan is expected to reach ten trillion years. That is a long enough time for life to evolve.” For us — who live, at most, around a hundred years — ten trillion is genuinely long. But is it long enough for life to arise on its own? That’s an entirely different question.
01Will shaking the box build a smartphone?
In 1953, Stanley Miller filled a glass tube with methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapour and ran an electric current through it. Amino acids appeared. The result spread fast, and many people walked away from church, persuaded that life — like everything else — could simply assemble itself.
Two things happened afterward, though. First, geologists realised the early Earth’s atmosphere wasn’t what Miller had assumed. Second — and this is the bigger point — making amino acids and making life are not the same thing at all.
Analogy
Soil forming in nature does not mean an apartment building can assemble itself out of nothing. Take every part needed to build a smartphone, drop them into a container, and shake — no matter how long, the parts will not assemble themselves into a working phone.
So what would the odds actually be of amino acids coming together to form a living organism? Let’s walk through it step by step.
02The odds of just one protein
Life requires proteins. An average protein is built from 300 to 400 amino acids — but they can’t just be strung together randomly. The sequence has to be just right for the protein to fold into something functional.
Molecular biologist Douglas Axe calculated the probability that a 150-amino-acid sequence would fold into a working protein at 1 in 1077. And that’s not the end of it. Every amino acid has to be joined by a peptide bond (about a 50% chance per bond) and every one has to be the L-form rather than the D-form (also 50%). Multiply it all together:
Odds of a single functional protein arising by chance
1 in 10167
That’s 1 followed by 167 zeros. The number of attempts required is far greater than the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe.
And that’s just one protein — not a living organism. Even ten trillion years is not enough time for one protein to form by chance. To produce a single protein within that span, roughly 10147 attempts would have to occur every second.
03But one protein isn’t enough
In 2016, J. Craig Venter’s team unveiled the simplest possible synthetic cell, Syn 3.0. It contains 473 genes. The team had originally expected that 256 genes would be enough — but after decades of work, they couldn’t reduce the count below 473.
Even more striking: roughly 150 of those genes are essential for survival, but no one yet knows what they do.
Venter himself put it like this:
We have shown how complex even the simplest life forms are. And these discoveries have humbled us.
The probability of all 473 proteins forming together by chance works out to roughly 1 in 1078,991. That is a number that simply cannot occur within the entire history of the universe.
04The atheists who changed their minds
The math has been startling enough that several prominent thinkers — having done the calculations themselves — moved from atheism toward belief in a Creator.
Sir Fred Hoyle
Astronomer
One of the leading atheists of his generation. After calculating the probability of life emerging by chance at 1 in 1040,000, he became a theist.
Antony Flew
Philosopher
The defining atheist philosopher of the twentieth century — an idol to Richard Dawkins. In 2004, he announced his belief in a Creator.
Dean Kenyon
Biochemist
A pioneer of chemical evolution research in the 1970s. As he came to grasp the complexity of life, he abandoned his earlier work and became a creationist.
05What do evolutionists actually say?
The honest ones admit they don’t know. Even Richard Dawkins has said in an interview, “Nobody knows how the first living matter came into existence.” But they refuse to acknowledge a Creator on the grounds of the “God of the gaps” objection — that not knowing isn’t a license to invoke God.
Some have gone further and proposed an infinite multiverse: if there are unlimited universes, then any improbable event must occur somewhere. The trouble is — we have never observed a multiverse, and we cannot. They are treating it as fact in order to rescue chance.
The evolutionary biologist Michael Ruse put it more bluntly than most. After conceding that the origin of life is “desperately difficult,” he closed a debate with these words:
I would rather be a fool than surrender to the Bible.
There it is. The real motive on the table. They are not searching for truth — they simply do not want to surrender before God.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
— Romans 1:20
To look with one’s own eyes at how intricately even the simplest life is designed — and then to deny the obvious conclusion of that observation — is, the Bible says, the work of those who “professed to be wise” and “became fools.”
The complexity that science keeps unveiling, the more it advances, points clearly to one conclusion. The God who made this world is alive. He made everything for us — and He made us.
— Want to go deeper? —
The full case, with all the math
Eugene Koonin’s multiverse paper, James Tour’s chemical critique, Stephen Meyer’s information argument, and the full text of Michael Ruse’s surrender — every piece of evidence for why ten trillion years is nowhere near enough.
Before we present the evidence in earnest, we must first be able to see our reality. And what that reality is comes down to this: we need to clarify what it means to know something.
You probably think you know many facts.
For example, you know who your parents are, you know where your home is. And you know, as a matter of complete obviousness, that you are a person — and that people typically have two eyes, one nose, one mouth, and ten fingers.
But is that truly knowing?
If we apply a genuinely rigorous definition of “knowing,” there are almost no facts we can claim to truly know.
In the movie The Matrix, the protagonist Neo lives in what he believes to be reality, working as a programmer. But after taking the red pill that reveals the truth, he discovers that the world he had been living in was actually a virtual reality, and that a separate, real world exists.
Can you prove that this world is a real, physical reality and not a virtual simulation inside a computer program?
Likewise, in the movie Inception, the protagonist Cobb crosses back and forth between reality and dreams using a dream machine, and we see people who cannot distinguish between dreams and reality — or who cannot escape from them.
Can you be certain that right now, as you read this book, you are living in the real world and not a dream?
You might think I am being unreasonable, but this is an extraordinarily well-known topic among philosophers.
We will explore it in more detail in the next chapter, but scientists actually research, hold seminars, and write papers on the possibility that this world is a virtual reality.
Furthermore, in attempting to solve the problem of the multiverse — a topic we will address later — what was discovered is that the probability of this world being an illusion created by a brain floating somewhere in space is infinitely greater than the probability of this world actually existing.
Of course, I myself am convinced that the world we live in is real and physical. But my conviction does not make it fact.
In that sense, I believe that what I see exists — I do not know it. Because I cannot prove that what I perceive is not an illusion fabricated by my brain, or an impossibly vivid dream.
Therefore, just as believing that God is alive is a matter of faith — since I have never seen Him with my own eyes — believing that my friends, my parents, and my teachers are real is equally a matter of faith. Indeed, even the fact that I have eyes at all is something I cannot prove; it too is belief.
So there is only one thing we can know without requiring any faith whatsoever.
That is the fact that there exists a “self” — a being capable of thinking about whether or not it exists.
Not the human “I” with two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and ten fingers — but the “I” that can wonder and think, whether it is a brain floating in some unknown space, or a soul existing not in any physical space but in a spiritual realm.
And so the philosopher René Descartes, who set out to negate everything that could possibly be negated, discovered the one thing he could never deny, and left us these famous words:
“I think, therefore I am.”
Many people respond to this problem by saying they are agnostic. But if one truly cannot rationally know whether God exists, then one must also say that we cannot know whether this world is a real, physical space-time. That is what genuine rational thinking, free from all presuppositions, actually demands.
Apologetics is a discipline that already begins from the assumption that all things are, at some level, unknowable. This is precisely why agnosticism cannot stand between the debate of atheism and theism. We simply assume the world of theism or the world of atheism, and proceed from there — determining which is more rational and reasonable given what we understand about the world.
As you read this book, you cannot take the position of “I don’t know whether God exists or not.” You need only decide: in a hypothetical world where God exists, or in one where He does not, which version of reality makes more rational and coherent sense to you — and then determine whether that world aligns with how you understand things to be.
