Is God Really the Creator?

The simple answer is yes. But what most who ask this really want to know is: Can we prove God is really the Creator? The answer to that question is also yes.

There are only two accepted answers to explain the origin of the universe.

One: The material universe and all that exists in it resulted from the working of random chance. Against all odds, matter somehow came into being as a result of a gigantic explosion at the beginning of time and then ordered and arranged itself into the universe we see today. (For more on this, see the article “Does the Big Bang Theory Require a Miracle?”)

Or, two: The material universe and all that exists in it resulted from the creative work of God.

Where did the first explanation come from?

The idea that the universe resulted from some incredible expansion of matter after a “big bang” and the related idea that life exists because of the accidental and random reactions of elements to produce all of the awesome array of chemical and biological systems of all life (the philosophy of evolution) actually developed due to the desire of some to explain the existence of the universe and life without God.

The antagonism between evolution and God

The rejection of God is not new. From the days of Adam and Eve, who knew God, mankind has sought gods or ideas to replace the true God as the creator of all that is.

The apostle Paul records, “Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful. … Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man―and birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things” (Romans 1:21-23).

As Paul also said, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to debased minds, to do those things which are not fitting” (verse 28, emphasis added throughout). This became the approach of many men through the millennia up to today.

Professor Louis Trenchard More, an evolutionist, candidly expressed the motivation behind his belief (and the belief of many evolutionists) in evolutionary theory when he wrote, “Our faith in the idea of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation” (Dogma of Evolution, 1925, p. 304).

Professor More later quoted evolutionist Herbert Spencer: “Of all antagonisms of belief, the oldest, the widest, the most profound and the most important, is that between Religion and Science.”

Professor More then continued, “If this controversy ever ends it will be when Science has conquered Religion, for their essential aims are antagonistic” (ibid., p. 308).

An evolutionist’s reasoning for rejecting God

One of the fathers of evolutionary thought was Julian Huxley. The following quotes are a sampling of his views concerning God:

“The supernatural is being swept out of the universe in the flood of new knowledge of what is natural. It will soon be as impossible for an intelligent, educated man or woman to believe in a god as it is now to believe the earth is flat, that flies can be spontaneously generated … or that death is always due to witchcraft. …

“The god hypothesis is no longer of any pragmatic value for the interpretation or comprehension of nature, and indeed often stands in the way of better and truer interpretation. Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat.”

Huxley believed man should reject the religion of God and develop a religion of his own in its place:

“God is a hypothesis constructed by man to help him understand what existence is all about. … To say that God is ultimate reality is just semantic cheating, as well as being so vague as to become effectively meaningless. …

“Today the god hypothesis has ceased to be scientifically tenable, has lost its explanatory value and is becoming an intellectual and moral burden to our thought. It no longer convinces or comforts, and its abandonment often brings a deep sense of relief. Many people assert that this abandonment of the god hypothesis means the abandonment of all religion and all moral sanctions. This is simply not true. But it does mean, once our relief at jettisoning an outdated piece of ideological furniture is over, that we must construct something to take its place.”

The philosophical religion formulated to replace God as Creator was the philosophy―the hypothesis and religion—of evolution.

The next quote gives a telling reason Huxley did not wish to believe in God.

“[I supposed the reason] that we leapt at the Origin [of Species] is that the idea of God interfered with our sexual morés.”

The point here is that many choose to reject belief in the reality of God because, if our Creator does exist, then He has the right to tell us how we should live. As Creator, He would know the way of life that would produce happiness and peace—if we chose to live by those principles.

Some do not want to believe there is a God because they do not want God passing judgment on the way they have chosen to live.

Is God really the Creator?

So the question remains: Can we prove God is really the Creator? God did not leave the answers to guesswork. God through the apostle Paul recorded, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-20, Revised Standard Version).

God Himself points to the creation as proof of His existence. Many scientists who look at the facts of true science honestly conclude that the only answer for the profound order and design of everything—from the stars to the atom and all of the intricate systems of all living things—is that they were created by a divine Designer.God Himself points to the creation as proof of His existence. Many scientists who look at the facts of true science honestly conclude that the only answer for the profound order and design of everything—from the stars to the atom and all of the intricate systems of all living things—is that they were created by a divine Designer.

Consider the following quotes:

“The sheer beauty and artistry of life’s chemical systems is undeniable. So, too, is the appearance of design. For those who regard this glorious treasure as the handiwork of a Creator, the page-by-page details supplied by researchers provide a rare and intimate glimpse into the art and thoughts of the Divine Master.

“Even scientists who maintain that undirected processes (natural selection operating iteratively on random genetic changes) produced the elegant chemical systems in the living realm find this appearance of biochemical design awe-inspiring” (Fazale Rana, The Cell’s Design, 2008, p. 270).

“‘When scientists talk about the fine-tuning of the universe,’ [Professor Robin] Collins said, ‘they’re generally referring to the extraordinary balancing of the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe. Our minds can’t comprehend the precision of some of them. The result is a universe that has just the right conditions to sustain life. The coincidences are simply too amazing to have been the result of happenstance—as Paul Davies said, “the impression of design is overwhelming”’” (Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 130).

“If the world’s finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?” (Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, pp. 235-236).

“Why, then, are so many scientists so sure that natural selection is sufficient? Probably because they see no alternative that does not involve some divine superintendence of affairs, and to admit such a possibility would be, they think, ‘unscientific.’ My own view is that it is unscientific to go beyond the evidence” (Stephen M. Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, 2006, p. 110).

As Paul wrote, men do not “like to retain God in their knowledge.”

But isn’t evolution at least a well-established theory?

At best, evolution is a hypothesis. According to a science textbook, the formulation of a hypothesis is the fifth step in the scientific method, while a theory is the conclusion of the eighth step. The steps are:

  1. Observation.
  2. Defining the problem.
  3. Gathering data.
  4. Organization of the data.
  5. Formulation of a hypothesis (“a temporary solution or scientific guess”).
  6. Controlled experimentation.
  7. Solution.
  8. Scientific verification or repeatability. (In this step other researchers must be able to repeat the experiments of the original researcher. “If their results are essentially the same as those of the original experimenter, the hypothesis is then considered to be valid and may assume the status of a theory.)
  9. Publication and application (Max N. Silvernale, Zoology, 1965, pp. 4-5).

A hypothesis must be tested by experiments. However, no experiment has ever been designed—nor can one be designed—that can demonstrate the “scientific guess” of transmutation of species.

For a hypothesis to become a theory, experiments must be verified and be repeatable. No such repeatability exists for macroevolution because there are no experiments that demonstrate the ultimate claims of evolution for the origin and the development of all the kinds of life on earth.

Proof of a Creator

For the scientific proof of the reality of God, please read the many articles in this section of the website (“Is There a God?”) that deal with the facts of science that verify the existence of God as the great designer of the universe and life.

And there is further proof of God’s reality. It is a real proof for those who are committed to living the kind of life that God created us to live. It requires a commitment to living the way of life taught by God in the Bible. Jesus said, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me; if any man’s will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority” (John 7:16-17, RSV).

If we seek to actually live by the way of life revealed in the pages of the Bible, we will see that it produces the good fruit that God promised. God has given many promises that He wants us to claim. By seeking to live as He teaches us, we are drawing “near to God.” As we do this, He has promised to “draw near to you” (James 4:8).

As God draws near to us when He sees us seeking to live life in a way pleasing to Him, He will make His reality clear to us through His Holy Spirit. We will see by experience that God is real.

By living the way God teaches, we can build an actual relationship with the Creator―the Creator who wants to be our Father. To build this relationship, we need to read, study and live by the biblical knowledge.

For more study on this subject, please read the article “Creation Demands a Creator.”

About the Author

Steve Moody

Steve Moody

Steve Moody graduated from Ambassador College in Pasadena, California, in June of 1971. He met his lovely wife and lifelong companion, Vivian, while in college. They married a few days following his graduation.

Read More

Continue Reading


Discern is published every two months and is available in digital and print versions. Choose your preferred format to start your subscription.

Print subscriptions available in U.S., Canada and Europe


Please choose your region:


Discern Article Series

Christ Versus Christianity
Walk as He Walked
Christianity in Progress
Wonders of God's Creation
Ask a Question