Here is a transcription of the first debate scene using the big bang and cosmological evolution for you to

examine:
Josh Wheaton: Atheists say that no one can prove the existence of God, and they’re right. But I say that
no one can disprove that God exists. But the only way to debate this issue is to look at the available
evidence, and that’s what we are going to do. We are going to put God on trial; with Professor Radisson
as the prosecutor, me as the defense attorney, and you as the jury.
Most cosmologists now agree that the universe began some 13.7 billion years ago in an event known as
the big bang [video image illustrating the big bang in the background]. So let’s look at theoretical
physicist and Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg’s description of what the big bang would have looked
like. And since he’s an atheist, we can be sure there isn’t any believer bias in his description.
“In the beginning there was an explosion, and in three minutes, 98% of the matter there is or ever will be
was produced. We had a universe.” [On-screen animation of the big bang]
For 2,500 years most scientists agreed with Aristotle on the idea of a steady-state universe—that the
universe has always existed with no beginning and no end. But the Bible disagreed. In the 1920s, Belgian
astronomer Georges Lemaitre, a theist, who was actually also . . .
Female Student 1: What, what’s a theist?
JW: A theist is someone who believes in the existence of God. He said that the entire universe, jumping
into existence in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, out of nothingness in an unimaginably intense flash
of light, is how he would expect the universe to respond if God were to actually utter the command
in Genesis 1:3, “Let there be light.” In other words, the origin of the universe unfolded exactly how one
would expect after reading Genesis, and for 2,500 years the Bible had it right, and science had it wrong.
You see, in the real world we never see things jumping into existence out of nothingness, but atheists will
make one small exception to this rule; mainly the universe and everything in it.
Female Student 2: But, in his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says that if you tell me God
created the universe then I have the right to ask you who created God.
JW: Dawkins’ question only makes sense in terms in a god who has been created. It doesn’t make sense
in terms of an uncreated god, which is the kind of God Christians believe in. And even leaving God out of
the equation, I then have a right to turn Mr. Dawkins own question back around on him and ask, if the
universe created you, then who created the universe? You see, both the theist and the atheist are both
burdened with answering the same question of how did things start. What I’m hoping you’ll pick up from
all this is that you don’t have to commit intellectual suicide to believe in a Creator behind the Creation.
And to the extent that you don’t allow for God, you’d be pretty hard pressed to find any credible
alternative explanation for how things came to be.
Professor Radisson: Well, I imagine you’re quite pleased with yourself. I see you carefully avoided the
fact that Steven Hawking, the world’s most famous scientist and who’s not a theist, has recently come out
in favor of a self-designing universe.
JW: I haven’t avoided it, I just didn’t . . . .
PR: You just didn’t know about it. Well, let’s see what professor Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Physics
at Cambridge who occupies a teaching chair once held by Sir Isaac Newton, has to say about the origin of
the universe. And I quote, “Because there’s a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself
from nothing spontaneously. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something instead of nothing;
why the universe exists; why we exist. It’s not necessary to invoke God to set the universe in motion,”
end quote. So you may have never come across his comment but his point remains. How do you answer
it?
JW: I don’t know.
PR: You don’t know? I prick the balloon of your entire argument with a single pin and you don’t know.
Huh?
JW: Well, I mean, I’d like to tell you I have the perfect answer, but it doesn’t shake my underlying faith.
PR: OK. So the greatest scientific mind of all history says that God is not necessary, but first semester
freshman says, “Oh, yes He is.” Wow, you know, it’s gonna be a really tough choice. Well, I look
forward to next week’s lecture. Class is dismissed.
In his presentation, Josh Wheaton uses a reference to astronomer Georges Lemaitre to attempt to
reconcile the big bang model with the account of creation in Genesis 1. Lemaitre was a Roman Catholic
priest who was the first, before Hubble, to propose that the universe was expanding from an original
“cosmic egg” from what we know today as the big bang hypothesis. Wheaton suggests that the big bang
explains exactly how we “would expect the universe to respond if God were to actually utter the
command in Genesis 1:3, ‘Let there be light.’”
Rather than accepting Wheaton’s assertion, let’s stop and analyze Genesis 1:1–5 and compare it to the big
bang model. The big bang suggests that the “cosmic egg” or “singularity” contained the entire universe in
an infinitely compacted space until it began to expand in an energetic flash of energy (including light),
and the energy eventually began to form simple atoms. These atoms formed the first stars after 400
million years. Those stars exploded to form heavier elements, which formed more stars, which exploded
to eventually form star systems. Our star system formed beginning about 5 billion years ago, and our
earth finally formed as a molten mass that eventually cooled and developed seas.
Now let’s read Genesis 1:1–5:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and
God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So
the evening and the morning were the first day.
In God’s description of the events, the earth was formed first, covered by water, and then the light
appeared to distinguish night from day. So in Genesis 1:3, we wouldn’t expect a flash of light to form the
universe, but to illuminate the water-covered earth that was already there. The biblical explanation and
the big bang explanation are fundamentally incompatible. To make them fit together, Wheaton
must rearrange the events of the Bible to fit with the big bang model. He must also deny that God created
the earth first and then light in order to accept that the big bang fits just fine with the Bible.
In his companion book to the film, Dr. Broocks spends all of chapter four describing how the big bang
model is compatible with the Bible and is the scientific proof that the universe had a beginning. He uses
this as one of the nine proofs of God’s existence in the book. Throughout the chapter, and elsewhere in
the book, Dr. Broocks references many scientists who embrace the big bang, especially those who see it
as how God created the universe. Interestingly, the big bang can be used as an atheistic model that does
not require God, but suggests the universe created itself through various quantum fluctuations. So even if
one were to argue for the origin of the universe from a big bang, the existence of a “god” is irrelevant.
This is definitely not a good argument for the existence of the biblical God.
Dr. Broocks repeatedly refers to Dr. Hugh Ross for explanations of many of these ideas, so it seems that
he embraces some form of progressive creation, as Dr. Ross teaches.2 (There will be more on the
biological evolutionary implications below.) Progressive creation utilizes both
cosmological evolution (big bang) and geological evolution (billions of years to form the earth and its
rock layers).
There is absolutely no mention of a biblical creation explanation for the origin of the universe. A young
universe is not even presented as an option in the book. In fact, the only reference that even approaches
the topic comes in a section in chapter eight where biblical interpretation is discussed. There we read,
“Even the first chapters of Genesis, though hotly debated in many circles, do not contradict what science
has verified about the physical world. Though very narrow interpretations by skeptics and believers alike
can leave some with a sense of irreconcilable differences, there are clear answers to the objective mind.”3
In light of these considerations, I cannot come to any other conclusion but that Josh Wheaton intended to
portray the big bang as God’s method of creating the universe and that the events of the big bang are
compatible with the Bible. He had no intention of offending the “scientific” sensibilities of the students or
the professor by denouncing the big bang as unbiblical. He certainly had no intention of presenting a
biblically-based recent creation over six actual days only 6,000 years ago as Genesis describes or saying
that the big bang is wrong as a scientific explanation of how God created. The apologetic argument in this
debate section was unbiblical and embraces a form of cosmological evolution over billions of years.
Second Debate Scene: Biological Evolution
Here is a transcription of the second debate discussing biological evolution for you to examine:
JW: [Stephen Hawking] also wrote a book called The Grand Design which says the following, “Because
there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” To be honest, I didn’t
know how to refute that. I mean, after all, Hawking is clearly a genius. But, Professor John Lennox, who
teaches mathematics and philosophy, has demonstrated that there are not one, even two, but three errors
of logic contained in that one simple sentence, and it all boils down to circular reasoning. Hawking is
basically saying that the universe exists because the universe needed to exist, and because the universe
needed to exist it therefore created itself. It’s like this, if I say to you that I can prove that spam is the best
tasting food that’s ever existed because in all of history, no food has ever tasted better, you’d probably
look at me strange and say I haven’t proven anything, and you’d be right. All I’ve done is restate my
original claim. But when Hawking claims that the universe created itself because it needed to create itself
and then offers that as an explanation as to how and why it was created, we don’t immediately recognize
that he’s doing the same thing, but he is, prompting Lennox to further comment, “Nonsense remains
nonsense even when spoken by famous scientists, even though the general public assumes they are
statements of science.”
PR: This is the height of hubris. Are you telling me that you, a freshman, are saying that Stephen
Hawking is wrong?
JW: No, what I’m saying is that John Lennox, a professor of mathematics and philosophy, has found
Professor Hawking’s reasoning to be faulty, and I agree with his logic. But, but, if you can’t bear to
disagree with Hawking’s thinking, then I suggest that you turn to page five of his book where he insists
philosophy is dead. And if you’re so sure of Professor Hawking’s infallibility, and philosophy really is
dead, then, uh, well, there’s really no need for this class.
[Laughter from the class; followed by a break in the debate scene to a counseling session between the
pastor and Professor Radisson’s Christian girlfriend.]
JW: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for the last 150 years, Darwinists have been saying that God is
unnecessary to explain man’s existence and that evolution replaces God, but evolution only tells you what
happens once you have life. So, where did that something that’s alive come from? Well, Darwin never
really addressed it. He assumed maybe some lightning hit a stagnant pool full of the right kind of
chemicals—Bingo—a living something. But, uh, it’s just not that simple. You see, Darwin claimed that
the ancestry of all living things came from that one single simple organism which reproduced and was
slowly modified over time into the complex life forms we view today, which is why after contemplating
his own theory Darwin uttered his famous statement, “Natura non facit saltum,” meaning, “nature does
not jump.” Well, as noted, author Lee Strobel pointed out that if you can picture the entire 3.8 billion
years that scientists say life has been around as one 24-hour day, in the space of just about 90 seconds
most major animal groups suddenly appear in the forms in which they currently hold, not slowly and
steadily as Darwin predicted, but in evolutionary terms almost instantly. So, “nature does not jump”
becomes “nature makes a giant leap.” So how do theists explain this sudden outburst of new biological
information?
“And God said, let the waters teem with living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the
expanse of the sky. So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with
which the water teems according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:20
In other words, Creation happened because God said it should happen. And even what looks to our eyes
to be a blind, unguided process could really be divinely controlled from start to finish.
There are two things worth noting about the explanation of evolution given by Wheaton. The first is that
he clearly denies Darwinian evolution. This is a very popular way for people who accept cosmological
and geological evolution over billions of years to distance themselves from accepting
biological evolution by blind, random processes. This is the common tactic of those in the Intelligent
Design movement, most of whom believe in the big bang and slow geologic processes and many of
whom accept a God-directed form of biological evolution. Wheaton’s presentation to the class clearly
rejects a naturalistic view of the origin of life and biological evolution—a view which no Christian can
consistently accept.
Similarly, Dr. Broocks also clearly states in his book that he does not believe in Darwinian
biological evolution and denies that humans evolved from other animals, but he says that many
respectable Christians believe in these forms of evolution and that theistic evolution is a respectable
interpretation.4 Based on his references to Hugh Ross, I suspect that Dr. Broocks would endorse some
form of progressive creation of animals where God created and then wiped out animals in successive
stages over billions of years, creating the “jumps” seen in the fossil record. This view allows for
acceptance of the big bang and a history of billions of years while rejecting what is popularly referred to
as “macroevolution.”
The second aspect of the argument presented is the clear acceptance of long ages of biological change that
was “divinely controlled from start to finish.” As spoken, I can see no other way to interpret this section
other than as an endorsement for either a form of progressive creation or theistic evolution of life on
earth. But it clearly precludes a young earth, six-day creation view by using the clock analogy. (The
analogy is attributed to Intelligent Design author Lee Strobel, but it is better attributed to Jonathan Wells,
though both men have worked together through the Discovery Institute.) Again, Wheaton has no intent to
offend the “scientific” sensibilities of his audience regarding an earth that is 4.5 billion years old and that
fossil-bearing layers of rock are consistent with that interpretation of history.
Dr. Broocks follows this approach in the book, never arguing against an old-earth interpretation of
Scripture and never even acknowledging that a young-earth interpretation is an option. As with the big
bang argument, I can come to no other conclusion from the debate scene than an endorsement of an Earth
that is billions of years old and a fossil record that is consistent with that interpretation. However, this
acknowledgment creates a substantial problem when it comes to the issue of death before sin, as we will
see in the next segment.
At face value, Wheaton’s comment about God guiding the process seems to be a clear endorsement of
some form of theistic evolution. Whether Wheaton has a theistic evolution process or a progressive
creation process guided by God in mind, the argument is not consistent with the Bible. In the Bible, the
order of the creation does not agree with either of those interpretations. As one clear example, both
progressive creation and theistic evolution teach that theropod dinosaurs were around before birds, as
evidenced in the fossil record. For theistic evolutionists, theropods evolved into birds. For progressive
creationists, there is a complex overlapping of the ages of creation so that some parts of “day six”
happened before “day five.” In God’s account of creation, birds are created one day before land animals
like theropod dinosaurs. These old-earth views are not compatible with the plain reading of Scripture, and
one must accept that the Bible’s order of creation is wrong or needs to be understood in a non-literal or
overlapping series of ages of various lengths. Wheaton’s argument for God’s existence denies the
biblically derived age of the earth and the biblical order of creation.
Third Debate Scene: The Problem of Evil
The final debate scene brings the climax of the film as Josh Wheaton confronts his professor with the
implications of the presence of evil in the world. To be sure, this section of the debate was a powerful part
of the film, and God is used as the standard of truth and good, unlike the previous two debate segments.
To use God’s character as the basis for recognizing absolute truth is a very biblical and effective
argument.
But the foundation that Wheaton has laid does not provide a platform to preach about a God who wants to
remove death and suffering from a world that was created in perfection. All old-earth views must accept
that the history of the earth is one of death, disease, suffering, natural disasters, and the constant struggle
for existence. In the debate scene, there is no mention of the real reason for the existence of these natural
evils or of the biblical description of man’s original condition.
Here is a transcription of the final debate scene discussing the problem of evil for you to examine:
JW: It has been said that evil is atheism’s most potent weapon against the Christian faith. And it is! After
all, the very existence of evil begs the question [sic], “If God is all good and God is all powerful, why
does He allow evil to exist?” The answer, at its core, is remarkably simple: free will. God allows evil to
exist because of free will. From the Christian standpoint, God tolerates evil in this world on a temporary
basis so that one day those who choose to love Him freely will dwell with Him in heaven free from the
influence of evil, but with their free will intact! In other words, God’s intention concerning evil is to one
day destroy it.
PR: Well, how convenient. “One day, I will get rid of all the evil in the world, but until then you just have
to deal with all the wars and holocausts, tsunamis, poverty, starvation, and AIDS. Have a nice life.” Next
he will be lecturing us on moral absolutes.
JW: Well, why not? Professor Radisson, who’s clearly an atheist, doesn’t believe in moral absolutes. But
his course syllabus says he plans to give us an exam during finals week. Now, I am betting that if I
managed to get an A on the exam by cheating, he will suddenly start sounding like a Christian, insisting it
is wrong to cheat, that I should have known that. And yet, what basis does he have? If my actions are
calculated to help me succeed, then why shouldn’t I perform them? For Christians, the fixed point of
morality, what constitutes right and wrong, is a straight line that leads directly back to God.
PR: So you are saying that we need a god to be moral? That a moral atheist is an impossibility?
JW: No, but with no God there is no real reason to be moral; there is not even a standard of what moral
behavior is. For Christians, lying, cheating, stealing, and my example, stealing a grade I didn’t earn, are
forbidden as a form of theft. But if God does not exist, as Dostoyevsky famously pointed out, “If God
does not exist, then everything is permissible.” And not only permissible, but pointless. If Professor
Radisson is right, then all of this—all of our struggle, all of our debate, whatever we decide here—is
meaningless. I mean, our lives, our deaths are of no more consequence than that of a goldfish.
PR: Come on, this is ridiculous. So after all of your talk, you are saying that it all comes down to a choice
—believe or don’t believe.
JW: That’s right. That’s all there is. That’s all there’s ever been. The only difference between your
position and my position is that you take away their choice. You demand that they choose the box marked
“I don’t believe.”
PR: Yes, because I want to free them. Because religion is like a . . . it’s like a mind virus that parents
have passed on down to their children. And Christianity is the worst virus of all. It slowly creeps into our
lives when we’re weak or sick or helpless.
JW: So religion is like a disease?
PR: Yes, yes. It infects everything. It’s the enemy of reason.
JW: Reason? Professor, you left reason a long time ago. What you are teaching here isn’t philosophy; it’s
not even atheism anymore. What you’re teaching is anti-theism. It’s not enough that you don’t believe,
you need all of us to not believe with you.
PR: Why don’t you admit the truth? You just want to ensnare them into your primitive superstition.
JW: What I want is for them to make their own choice. That’s what God wants.
PR: You have no idea how much I am going to enjoy failing you.
JW: Who are you really looking to fail, Professor: me or God?
JW: Do you hate God?
PR: That’s not even a question.
JW: Okay, why do you hate God?
PR: This is ridiculous.
JW: Why do you hate God?! Answer the question! You’ve seen the science and the arguments. Science
supports His existence. You know the truth! So why do you hate Him?! Why?! It’s a very simple
question, Professor. Why do you hate God?!
PR: Because He took everything away from me! Yes, I hate God! All I have for Him is hate!
JW: How can you hate someone if they don’t exist?
PR: You’ve proven nothing.
JW: Maybe not, but they get to choose. Is God dead?
Students [as they stand]: God is not dead. God is not dead. God is not dead. God is not dead. God is not
dead . .  .
What Wheaton fails to do in his argument is to explain that God had originally created a world where
there was no death, disease, suffering, or sin. Everything was perfect and worked in perfect harmony. The
animals did not eat each other. There were no tsunamis to wipe out massive numbers of creatures in
minutes. Creation was perfect (Genesis 1:31; Deuteronomy 32:4). It was Adam’s rebellion against God
that brought these evils into the world.
But from an old-earth view, that cannot be the case. Whether you accept theistic  evolution or progressive
creation, the world before Adam sinned was filled with violence, death, and destruction. Death is not an
enemy that is to be eliminated (1 Corinthians 15:26), but a part of the process of creation. Disease is not
an intruder, but a part of bringing God’s will for His creation to pass. Natural disasters are not a sign of a
fallen universe corrupted by sin, but a tool used by God to wipe out creatures to make room for new ones.
The creation has not been groaning as it awaited the redemption and restoration since the Fall (Romans
8:22), but it has always been groaning. And if this is the case, to what will it be restored—a restoration of
the death and disease that was common before the Fall?
Without a foundation of an initially perfect creation, there is no foundation upon which to say that these
natural evils are bad and contrary to God’s original purpose. Romans 8:20–22 talks of the impacts of the
curse on all of creation and the longing for redemption and restoration at the consummation of all things.
Without a perfect original creation, this promise has little hope in it. The God that Wheaton has convinced
the students exists is one where the disease that took Professor Radisson’s mother was part of the “very
good” that God pronounced when He finished His creative works (Genesis 1:31). Had professor Radisson
not imploded in an emotional fit, he could have pointed out these underlying inconsistencies in
Wheaton’s argumentation, as many atheists have done in the past.
In the book, Dr. Broocks devotes chapter three to the problem of evil, but he does not ground his
argument in God’s perfect original creation. Rather, he grounds his argument in the necessity of “free
will” and the general acceptance of evil by all people. He does say that God will ultimately deal with evil
through Christ’s work on the Cross and provide an eternity without evil in a new creation, but there is no
explanation of this being a restoration of the original creation. There is no doubt that the Bible describes
an eternity in perfection for those who are in Christ, but the Bible makes it clear that that new creation is a
restoration of the original state in which God created the world—only without the possibility of future sin
since Christ has conquered sin.
Wheaton’s argument for the presence of evil fails to acknowledge the perfect original creation and,
combined with his other main arguments, demands a world where death reigned before Adam’s rebellion
and God’s proclamation of “very good” included many natural evils. In that sense, a biblical truth was
built upon an unbiblical foundation, and it cannot stand. Without a perfect creation, there is no reason to
expect that the restoration of all things will be perfect, and the gospel itself is undermined. Accepting the
perfect original creation described in Genesis is essential to answering the question of the evil we
experience in the world and the hope of its removal in the future.

Conclusion
As I stated in the introduction, the movie God’s Not Dead presents many commendable ideas and actions.
However, it is not free from error. And as I have demonstrated above, those errors are somewhat subtle. I
can understand how someone watching the movie could misunderstand the nature of the arguments being
made, especially if you are already thinking from a biblical creation perspective as you enter the
experience. However, I must emphatically deny that the movie spoke against the big bang and old-earth
ideas, as many who commented on the original article suggested. Any question about whether the intent
was to promote the big bang and millions of years in the movie were laid to rest by the book’s
explanation.
I trust that you can use God’s Not Dead and this article to equip yourself and others to stand boldly for
Christ. Whether challenges come from other Christians or those who stand against Christ, I pray that you
will look to Scripture as your absolute authority in every area of life and not be taken captive by old-
earth, evolutionary views—whether cosmological, biological, or geological—that are based on the
elementary principles of the world and the traditions of men (Colossians 2:1–10). Rather, look to Christ
and rely on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God to carefully evaluate the arguments being offered to you,
taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, holding fast to the good and using it to spread the
hope of salvation found in Jesus Christ—our Creator and Savior.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF A BIBLICAL CREATION EXPLANATION FOR THE
ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE.
I CAN SEE NO OTHER WAY TO INTERPRET THIS SECTION OTHER THAN AS AN ENDORSEMENT
FOR EITHER A FORM OF PROGRESSIVE CREATION OR THEISTIC EVOLUTION OF LIFE ON
EARTH.
WITHOUT A FOUNDATION OF AN INITIALLY PERFECT CREATION, THERE IS NO FOUNDATION
UPON WHICH TO SAY THAT THESE NATURAL EVILS ARE BAD AND CONTRARY TO GOD’S
ORIGINAL PURPOSE