As human residents of planet earth, we naturally are driven to figure out who we are, why we are here, and where we are going when our life in this world is over. We are also driven to understand the mysterious nature of life itself, particularly when it comes to the curious mix of good and evil that exists all around us.

Moreover, as rational and logical beings, we should endeavor to where the evidence itself naturally leads us. Philosophical or theological prejudice should ideally play little or no role here, because it is the objective accuracy of our conclusions that is ultimately of paramount importance to everyone. We will derive little or no benefit if we mindlessly choose to believe whatever we want to believe about the nature of life. On the other hand, if the evidence itself naturally leads us to the cosmic doorstep of a Supreme Being, we shouldn't shy away from this conclusion for narcissistic, self-motivated reasons, either.

For many years now people of all races and tongues have believed that modern science has effectively disproven the existence of God. I myself believed this until I was in my third year of college, when I took an organic chemistry class. It was at this point that I realized, in a sudden burst of insight, that the facts of modern science actually point decisively in the opposite direction—namely, to the existence of a "Supercalculating Intellect" who has deliberately crafted the universe to support life.

Later, when I began to dig deeper in this matter, I was astonished to learn that the idea of God was actually an integral part of the history of science. I learned that most of the founding fathers of the modern scientific movement were in fact theists or deists themselves; and moreover, that the very impetus to do science was originally based on the conviction that a Divine Law-Giver had deliberately established a set of universal laws that were knowable to humans.

I was even more astonished to learn that a significant historical misrepresentation of the nature of science has taken place in our modern age. The ostensible aim of this insidious historical revisionism has been to rationalize God out of the scientific matrix altogether.

The facts of history, though, speak for themselves. For instance, we've been led to believe that Nicholas Copernicus somehow "dethroned" humanity from the center of the universe by his heliocentric discovery that the earth revolves around the sun, instead of vice versa. This theistically neutral discovery has actually been elevated to the level of a formal scientific principle, which states that there is nothing special about the earth at all. This Copernican Principle has been recited ad infinitum by a litany of scientists and philosophers, but the remarkable fact of the matter is that this conclusion is based on a serious falsehood, as there is no necessary, or even likely, connection between the earth's geographical location in the solar system and its overall degree of specialness in the universe. Indeed, Copernicus himself was a thoroughgoing anthropocentrist, and he even based his discovery on his anticipation of how an Intelligent Designer would have crafted the solar system.

The same thing can be said for Charles Darwin as well, whom the history of science has misrepresented to be an arch atheist. He was actually nothing of the kind. Like his grandfather Erasmus before him, Darwin was a deist, and he even based his theory of evolution by natural selection on his religious conviction that God Himself had established the various laws by which the process of evolution itself operates. All Darwin really wanted to show is that God didn't create the biosphere instantaneously by miraculous fiat. Darwin instead was convinced that God brought about life by the interposition of "secondary causes," which are the naturalistic factors that led to the rise of life by natural evolutionary pathways. But this is a long way from being a genuine atheistic position. Indeed, Darwin's theory bears a striking resemblance to the creation story in Genesis One, in which the earth itself (and not God directly) is said to have brought about life in six major "days," or stages. But this is identical to the most fundamental definition of evolution, which is merely "change with respect to time."

Remarkably enough, as I continued to follow this line of evidence, I was even more astonished to learn that there appears to be a constraining set of logical principles surrounding human nature, which makes the temporary existence of evil on this planet inevitable, regardless of how much power God is deemed to possess. These logical constraints do not appear to be rooted in the metaphysical nature of things, as process theists believe. Instead, they seem to be rooted in the Human Essence itself, such that they would only apply in our world as long as the human race is desired to exist.

Although this is a moderate anthropocentric view (because it allows for the possible existence of intelligent life elsewhere), this doesn't necessarily render it false or "unscientific." To the contrary, the latest scientific evidence has revealed three powerful empirical observations that surprisingly support this doctrine of moderate anthropocentrism.

To begin with, moderate "anthropic" cosmology has revealed that the underlying structural "recipe" for human life in fact permeates the entire known universe! In this limited structural sense human beings are located at the "center" of the known universe after all.

The human brain is also widely acknowledged to be the most complex physical structure ever discovered. In terms of sheer structural complexity, then, the human brain can also be considered to exist at the "center" of the known universe as well.

Finally, the faculty of human consciousness is generally believed to be the most advanced functional property yet to be observed in the cosmos. In terms of pure functional sophistication, then, the property of human consciousness can also be considered to exist at the "center" of the entire known universe.

These realizations are strongly supported by the many intriguing "anthropic coincidences" that have been discovered by modern cosmologists. These "coincidences" reveal a stunning degree of "fine-tuning" in the support of life, such that some of the most die hard atheistic scientists are now "jumping ship" over to a theistic point of view.

The six books that have spanned my research career document all of the above topics in common-sense, easy-to-read language. I am now convinced, on a purely logical and empirical level, that an all-powerful Deity is in fact responsible after all for designing the universe to be life-supporting. I am also convinced that the problem of evil will eventually be resolved forever at some point in the distant future (probably in the Afterlife), when the innermost character structure of human beings is finally able to reach the spiritual wholeness that was ultimately intended by the Creator.

You might also enjoy reading Michael's latest article.