The Misplaced Burden of Proof

The Unnecessary Burden

The misplaced burden of proof

I have witnessed and been a part of numerous debates regarding origins, with folks who refer to themselves as atheists. Most often, I hear the atheist, in one manner or another, assert that the burden of proof for life, the cosmos, or whatever else coming about by any sort of guided process or intelligence lies with the theist, as opposed to lying with them. The problem often is that the theist very incorrectly accepts this premise, much to the detriment of the atheist. I say that because sometimes the atheist loses by believing that he has won the argument and believes that he is correct; he loses in the ultimate sense if he never understands the truth and never comes to faith in the finished work of Jesus.

That said, if one steps back and assesses, then properly understands the implications behind the assertion being made by the atheist, it is found to be completely void of any sort of logic or true scientific basis. If one is correctly doing science, he will be honestly searching for truth, making observations and formulating a hypothesis that coincides with this premise. If true empirical experimentation is plausible, the classic scientific method will be employed, thus experiments will be designed and performed in order to rigorously attempt to falsify (test) this hypothesis. If it stands up to repeated thorough, thoughtful, and rigorous testing, it may eventually be accepted as a valid and legitimate scientific theory.

The Scientific Method

This is, of course, not always possible. Obviously, no human being is capable of replicating the Supreme Creator (much less being capable of containing Him), to whom the true theist credits the universe and all that is in existence, including life as we know it. And no one is able to replicate the complete and utter nothingness (no space, no time, no information, no intention, no purpose, etc.), and unfathomable luck that is ultimately responsible for the true atheistic worldview of the origin of the universe and all that is in existence, including life as we know it. [This is indeed what the atheist worldview must reduce to, or it is not atheism.]

With that said, science can still make inferences; it is supposed to. An inference is a logical conclusion or educated guess reached by combining available evidence, observations, or text clues with prior knowledge and reasoning. For example, I can logically infer that the computer I am using to type this post is clearly the result of a source of intelligence and intention. It has a purpose; there are many instances of multiple components that all must exist and be in their proper place simultaneously in order to function properly together, right from the onset (irreducible complexity). There are larger systems that are made up of smaller systems that require the smaller systems to work with one another in an orderly manner. The machine clearly has a purpose that is served by this deliberate architecture. There is clear evidence that in order to build it and render it operational, clear intention was required. Also, planning was required. Knowledge and innovative thought were required, a purpose was required, vast amounts of highly complex, organized, and deliberate information were required.

Pinckney Engineering Research Lab

All this leads me to logically infer that there was an intelligent designing force responsible for the existence of this computer. I really don't need to prove this, even though I cannot see, nor do I know the people of said intelligent designing force. Going through an experimental process in order to prove this would be a laughable waste of time at best. To say that it is obvious that I have no burden of proof is a gross understatement. Anyone wanting to assert that the architecture of the hardware of this computer along with all of its purposeful programming/software came from nothing but unguided random and accidental processes would solely bear the burden of proof for their preposterous assertion. Their assertion would be in direct opposition to any logical inferences regarding the origin of this computer.

The computer I am using right now is indeed a well-designed machine. It was built by lots of smart people. Obviously, people are capable of producing it. This is not the case with life, however. Smart people are still not smart enough to produce life; not even a single cell, the base unit of life, that is capable of dividing (making a copy of itself) and differentiating (making different kinds of copies of itself). [Very smart people with much knowledge and intention have produced artificial cells which are not alive and are overwhelmingly dwarfed in complexity and functionality by natural cells.] I won't even mention the mechanisms necessary for cells to cooperatively function as tissues, and for tissues to cooperatively function as organs, for organs to cooperatively function as the organ systems that comprise the organism, which is capable of reproducing itself, either asexually or sexually. I won't even talk about all of the intricate and necessary workings and interactions of the biosphere. I won't bother talking about the fine-tuned conditions for life on our planet and solar system, nor the perfectly tuned conditions of our universe for allowing matter to exist, let alone life.

Tune This Beast, Chieves!

All this said, the logical conclusion is that the burden of proof for the cosmos and life coming about without a Creator is on the atheist. The theist sees obvious evidence of design at all levels. The theist logically infers that this design requires a designer/Creator, just as I logically inferred that this computer is a result of an intelligent designing force. I bear no more burden of proof for a designer/Creator of the cosmos and life as we know it than I do for a designing and creating force for this computer. The atheist rejects the obvious and asserts otherwise; the burden of proof is on the atheist.

The Apostle Peter tells us to be able to give an answer for our blessed hope with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). All believers should have a clear and concise understanding of the Gospel and be able, willing, and eager to present it as such. However, we also need to be able to meet people where they are in other ways, often in order to help bring them to a point where they are willing to hear and believe the Gospel. A working knowledge of apologetics is one of those ways. Nonetheless, let us (starting with me) always be mindful that in any sort of debate with nonbelievers on matters ultimately pertaining to their salvation, our goal is not to win arguments for ourselves; it is to win souls for God.

Please like and share this. It helps to spread the Gospel. Please also take the time to view some of the other blog posts and articles on the site. Thanks for stopping by. God bless.

Please also read Aspects of Salvation (free PDF), also available on kindle and in paperback.