“In this seminal new book, distinguished biochemist Michael Denton takes the fine-tuning argument to a whole new level. He shows that many of the chemical elements themselves and their properties are delicately fine-tuned for life, and the same holds for crucial compounds like water. Denton also makes a convincing case that all these instances of fine-tuning converge towards a ‘primal blueprint’ that existed prior to the arrival of the first living cell. Denton is at the forefront of assembling this evidence as a cumulative case for teleology (the study of the evidences of design or purpose) in nature. The Miracle of the Cell greatly advances the case in favour of intelligent causes in the natural sciences. The growing body of evidence from modern science more and more calls for a shift away from the ruling but obsolete paradigm of materialism, which allows only for the blind action of natural laws and mere matter in motion. Michael Denton’s work will prove to be a milestone in this ongoing scientific revolution.” GÜNTER BECHLY, Ph.D., PALEONTOLOGIST
TRUTH IS PRECIOUS BEYOND ALL MEASURE – THAT WHICH AGREES WITH FINAL REALITY.
Ultimately, only our Creator can know the TRUTH of His creation, the WHY, HOW, WHEN and WHERE. Fortunately, our Creator has revealed the TRUTH to us in His Word, The Bible. The proof of its authenticity is PROPHECY. Much of the Bible is prophecy. It reveals future events, e.g. there were more than 300 prophecies of Jesus first coming, many 700 years before the events took place. Moreover, there are far more prophecies about Jesus second coming and many are unfolding in our time.
When Jesus was brought before the Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, prior to His crucifixion, Pilate asked Jesus “What is truth?” This question was prompted by a previous question to Jesus: “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I am come into the world, that I should bear witness to the TRUTH. Everyone who is of the TRUTH hears My voice.“ John 18:37
Jesus said to Thomas, I am the way, the TRUTH and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6
“And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever, even the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees or knows Him; but you know Him for He dwells with you and be in you..” John 14:16
Jesus prayed to our heavenly Father, “Sanctify them by your TRUTH. Your word is TRUTH.” John 17:17
“If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the TRUTH and the TRUTH shall set you FREE.” John 8:31-32
Sadly, Paul tells us what the world has done: “exchanged the TRUTH of God for the LIE, and served and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator.” Romans 1:25
Originally, the purpose of education had the right foundation – main end of a person is to know God, so Theology was the basis for all other study. Biblical truth was the foundation on which all else: ideas , philosophy etc was built. True education was built on a Biblical foundation and Christian principles. Listen to this short video on Harvard, as to its origin and purpose.
That has all changed due to materialism/evolution, liberalism, secularism, humanism. Cultural elites have grown hostile to Biblical Christianity, accepting evolution as fact. One of Satan’s greatest lies is evolution, substituting it for creation, as the basis for the origin of God’s Cosmos. Check out http://www.creation.com for all you need to counter this lie.
Deception is far more common than truth today. This is why things reported in the media are now more likely to be false or at least distorted. You can also now count on the same from most of the pulpits in the American church. The message of the typical American church today would be unrecognisable to the apostles of the first century. The same is true in most of the western world.
The disconnect from truth has come the same way in the media that it has in the church. Of course, this is not true in every church or the entire media. It’s easy to see in the media how there is now a tendency to report what they want to be true rather than what is true. Is that not how we have changed the gospel, the church, and even our concept of God into what we want them to be rather than how they are?
As mentioned, there are many end times prophecies. Peter talks of the mockery in the Last Days. “Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the “last days”, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming (Jesus Second Coming)?” For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. For this they wilfully forget ; that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished being flooded by water (Noah’s Flood). But the heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly men.” 2 Peter 3:3-7
Note: they wilfully forget God judged the entire earth with Noah’s Flood just 4,000 years ago, only eight people survived. Otherwise, the prophesied coming judgement with fire may also be true.
Whether it is video gaming, television, Netflix, internet or sports—we love mindless escape, as we hang out in various worlds of non-reality, as often as possible.
Ratings, views, tweets and sales are the barometer of success in our media crazed-culture. Advertising dollars and high-value sponsorship’s flow toward enterprises that attract the largest audience and demonstrate an upward trend in ratings. Sadly, these influences can also affect how we conduct “business” in the spiritual arena. I am certainly not against the appropriate use of high-tech tools to advance the work of the gospel and the church. God can use various means of delivery via television, radio and internet when these are properly managed and biblically motivated. But we also must be honest in admitting that in many ways the culture has influenced the message more than our message has changed the culture. Yet, the only life-changing and lasting good news in our world today is the true gospel of Jesus Christ. We must take care to broadcast the unchanging New Testament hope of the gospel and guard ourselves from communicating popular notions that feel good but ultimately fail to clarify the truth that sets us free.
The real news that delivers us into true good news is that we are all under God’s divine judgement because of our sin, rebellion and depravity. God’s solution through the finished work of Jesus on our behalf is ultimate good news. Jesus stated, “I came into this world for judgement, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39). His bold and consistent message of repentance was rooted in the truth of man’s lost condition and condemnation of sin (Matt. 4:17, Luke 13:5, Luke 24:46-47). The message of the early church was repent and believe, an essential message for those under judgement of sin and in need of the mercy of a holy, loving and forgiving God (Mark 6:12, Act 2:38, 8:22, 20:21, 11:18, 17:30).
The truth of our sin and separation from a holy God is what makes the work of Christ essential, powerful and sufficient. That sinful man can be cleansed, forgiven and transformed is true, Christ-honouring and God-glorifying GOOD news. To declare that we are all “basically good” undermines the wonder of the true gospel.
So, in a world of confusing media and watered-down messaging, may the Holy Spirit give us discernment to test all things (1 Thess. 5:21) and cling to the sound doctrine of the gospel. In this, God is rightly glorified and we are truly edified. In knowing, believing, obeying and defending the gospel, we find true hope and lasting encouragement. Anything less will be superficial and short-lived. Surely, our broken world and our difficult lives require nothing less, nothing else and nothing more than the living and clear gospel of Jesus Christ
Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-19770) made a major contribution towards Christian theory of reality (ontology). In his theory, Dooyeweerd proposes that we understand creation as having multiple aspects (law-spheres), where an ‘aspect’ is defined as “a basic kind of properties and laws”. Examples of such kinds are: physical, spatial, biotic, logical, sensory, linguistic, ethical, etc. He distinguishes fifteen such aspects of created reality. They are mutually irreducible both in the sense that none can be coherently eliminated in favour of another and also none can be coherently regarded as the cause of any other.
The core idea is that all aspects are created, since there is nothing that God did not create. This includes matter and life, the laws of logic, and the laws governing all the other aspects. The theory goes on to argue that all things in creation have (active or passive) properties of every one of the aspects and so are subject to the laws of all the aspects. For example, a rock has a specific weight whether we know its weight or not. It is has this property independent of an observer. But its sensory colour is not independent. Rather it appears black in relation to a perceiver. Thus the rock’s colour is a passive property because it requires being acted upon by a perceiver to be actualised. The theory takes note of the observed fact that, as far as we know, only humans have active properties in all fifteen aspects. Second the first six (lower aspects) are governed by laws that cannot be broken such as the law of gravity. By contrast higher aspects such as “ethical” can be violated. Dooyeweerd argues that the aspects lower on the list are preconditions for aspects higher on the list, but that no aspect produces an other. For example, it is necessary for there to be things with active physical properties in order for there to be things with active biotic properties, which are in turn necessary for there to be things that have active sensory perception.
The distinctness of modal aspects is anchored in our experiences with all created things: from a molecule over algae and mammals to humans, each kingdom features new active properties that do not exist in the lower kingdoms, neither can they be imagined – as transitional- properties. A philosophy that presupposes a loving God who has given us the ability to observe, know and experience the world in a meaningful way necessarily leads us to trust our observations. The distinctness and irreducibility of modal aspects and laws tells us, then, that things could not have ’emerged’ or evolved form each other, having their origin in God and without the means of some evolutionary process that cannot account for the step changes in the properties we observe.
I would suggest that the only reason special creation is rejected as the best explanation for origins is a pre-existing bias towards materialistic evolutionary explanations.
Extract from article by Martin Tampier in Journal of Creation Vol. 30 (2) 2016
In the wake of the recent tragic terrorist attacks, a popular video on You Tube with nearly a million views shows an unnamed pianist before a crowd on the street in Paris playing a piano with a giant ‘peace sign’ painted on it. He’s playing John Lennon’s song, “Imagine”—a song with a strongly secular humanist, antireligious message. In the lyrics, Lennon writes: Imagine there’s no heaven, It’s easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky, Imagine all the people, Living for today …, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people, Living life in peace.
Lennon was blind to the implications of this humanistic worldview he was promoting. If there is no heaven or hell, that means there is no ultimate reward or punishment for anything you do while living on this earth. This was what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote, “What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” (1 Corinthians 15:32)
What does a world look like with no moral constraints from God? Far from the peaceful paradise that Lennon ‘imagines’, the history of the 20th century bore out the results, as the Marxist, atheistic communist regimes took over and committed murder and genocide on a mass scale never before seen in history. The simple fact is, the true morality of the Bible looks absolutely nothing like the actions taken by militant Islamists.
When terrible things like this happen, people always are moved to ask why a good God would allow such evil things to take place; but what people sometimes fail to realize is the very idea of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ that they are using to judge the situation comes only from God in the first place. Take this as an opportunity to share the Good News with those who are looking for answers!
Extracted from article by Paul Price http://www.creation.com
I hope this article “Answering a reasonable atheist on deep philosophical questions” from Creation Ministries International (CMI) 30th September, 2012 provides helpful answers for Christians and unbelievers as well.
To demonstrate that not all of CMI’s opponents are hostile and unreasonable, we publish feedback by Tim W. of the USA to our article – Answering the ‘new atheists’ (interview with Doug Wilson). In this, Tim W. sought to defend the proposition that atheism can provide meaning and purpose. Tim W.’s email is printed in its entirety (red), and then followed by point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati.
This is an interesting article. I think you are on the right track when you suggest that modern atheists are worried at the resurgence of conservative Christianity in the United States. Frankly, it concerns me that so many politicians have anti-abortion views with which I strongly disagree. Part of my moral beliefs value limited rights of women to choose the fate of their unfertilized eggs, embryos and their own bodies. Similarly, I understand that Christians have legitimate reason to be concerned that unbelievers will influence a policy or social climate that permits the destruction of actual or potential human organisms. The stakes are high so it should be no surprise that the voices of atheism rise to compete with the voices of religion.
I also agree with the author, and with Hume, that one cannot infer what ought to be, in a normative sense, from what is, was or will be the case. In this way, it is reasonable to say that naturalism or ‘scientism’ cannot suggest a specific theory or morality. However, that does not mean that morality is not compatible with materialism, naturalism or atheism. It only means that morality must come from philosophy (ethics) rather than from theology. There is no reason why an atheist cannot have a more sophisticated ‘sense’ or theory of morality than someone who bases their beliefs of right and wrong conduct (or thoughts) on the teachings of a formal religion. My own beliefs are more consistent with a general sense of basic ‘fairness,’ than obedience to the demands of a deity.
Lastly, I don’t understand the basis of a statement such as “The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile,” or “the atheist can’t account for reason if there is no God.” These are philosophical questions that do not seem to be contingent on the existence of a God. Is reasoning trustworthy or meaningful? Those are matters of epistemology, not theology. Moreover, I think it is far from obvious that neither life, nor anything else for that matter, can have meaning unless one believes in God. God may give your life meaning, but that does not mean that nothing can provide meaning for an atheist’s life. I can imagine an atheist saying that her daughter, for example, gives her life meaning. Would you call her a liar?
Dr Jonathan Sarfati replies: Thanks (on behalf of CMI and the article author).
TW: I think you are on the right track when you suggest that modern atheists are worried at the resurgence of conservative Christianity in the United States.
JS: What is really striking is how many modern atheists have become such delicate little flowers. They are hurt and offended by plastic baby Jesuses at Nativity scenes and are in danger of having a stroke if they hear a student-led prayer at a football game. (But of course, anyone objecting to obscenity or porn should just look the other way or change channels.) Even leading atheist Richard Dawkins is not such a wimp; he joins in Christmas celebrations. What a contrast the modern activists are with the far more robust atheists of yesteryear who vigorously debated the formidable G.K. Chesterton, and remained good friends even after finishing second.
TW: Frankly, it concerns me that so many politicians have anti-abortion views with which I strongly disagree.
JS: It would concern me if we didn’t have that many. Once we dehumanize one class of humanity, there is no limit. See for example article – Unborn babies may “be planning their future”: What now for the abortion lobby?
TW: Part of my moral beliefs value limited rights of women to choose the fate of their unfertilized eggs, embryos and their own bodies.
JS: Well, there’s the problem: the unborn is not part of a woman’s body. A reductio ad absurdum I’ve explained is: this would entail that a mother carrying a son must have a penis.
TW: Similarly, I understand that Christians have legitimate reason to be concerned that unbelievers will influence a policy or social climate that permits the destruction of actual or potential human organisms.
JS: Yes, that’s exactly the issue. Without the protection of life, no other right, real or assumed, has any meaning. ‘Rights’ to private property, housing, employment, medical care, or anything else, mean nothing if one is not alive to exercise them.
TW: The stakes are high so it should be no surprise that the voices of atheism rise to compete with the voices of religion.
JS: The problem arises when voices of atheism try to silence the voices of Christianity. This includes university ‘speech codes’, ‘hate speech’, the persecution of Christians in atheistic communist regimes, and the GayStapo attacks on the Church and family. See Gay marriage, politicians, and the rights of Christians.
TW: I also agree with the author, and with Hume, that one cannot infer what ought to be, in a normative sense, from what is, was or will be the case.
JS: A key point.
TW: In this way, it is reasonable to say that naturalism or ‘scientism’ cannot suggest a specific theory or morality. However, that does not mean that morality is not compatible with materialism, naturalism or atheism. It only means that morality must come from philosophy (ethics) rather than from theology.
JS: It certainly can’t come from the axiom ‘God does not exist.’
TW: There is no reason why an atheist cannot have a more sophisticated ‘sense’ or theory of morality than someone who bases their beliefs of right and wrong conduct (or thoughts) on the teachings of a formal religion. My own beliefs are more consistent with a general sense of basic ‘fairness’, than obedience to the demands of a deity.
JS: But where does the notion of ‘fairness’ come from in an evolutionary world? Surely it’s just a delusion caused by certain neurochemical activity that happened to be useful for our ancestors to survive. Just like rape was useful to spread our genes, as two evolutionists seriously argued in a book (look how one squirmed to justify why rape should be considered ‘wrong’). Similarly, the article Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation documents how leading atheistic philosopher/logician Bertrand Russell could not explain why right vs. wrong was any different from choosing one’s favourite colours.
Think of consistent evolutionist and atheistic philosopher Peter Singer, who justifies infanticide, euthanasia, and bestiality. It’s also notable that some critics of my article Abortion ‘after birth’? Medical ‘ethicists’ promote infanticide claimed that Singer was an anomaly among atheists. Yet I showed that his pro-infanticide views were shared by the Journal of Medical Ethics and the vocal antitheist P.Z. Myers. See also Bioethicists and Obama agree: infanticide should be legal. He also wrote the major Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Ethics (1992), and earlier this year, the Australian Government gave him Australia’s highest honour, Companion of the Order of Australia.
TW: Lastly, I don’t understand the basis of a statement such as “The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile,” or “the atheist can’t account for reason if there is no God.” These are philosophical questions that do not seem to be contingent on the existence of a God.
JS: I would say they are, as natural selection explains only survival value, not truth and logic. In Canada, one atheistic philosophy professor argued that these things would have selective value. I responded that this is not necessarily so under his belief system. After all, he must regard theistic religion as one thing that evolved for survival value, yet he would regard this as false and illogical. Thus survival, under his perspective, can be enhanced by the false as well as the true.
TW: Is reasoning trustworthy or meaningful? Those are matters of epistemology, not theology. Moreover, I think it is far from obvious that neither life, nor anything else for that matter, can have meaning unless one believes in God. God may give your life meaning, but that does not mean that nothing can provide meaning for an atheist’s life.
JS: One of my colleagues wrote in Answering life’s big questions: Only the Bible provides the answers:
Today we are effectively told, in the evolutionary story, that life is a fluke, a cosmic accident. In this case our existence lacks any purpose, so life is a farce. And where are we going, in this view? Fertilizer! In short, life is: Fluke … farce … fertilizer.
Evolutionist Richard Dawkins said that we live in a universe that has “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”. The evolutionists’ universe has no purpose because it is an accident; a cosmic accident. With evolution so widely taught in schools and universities, is it any wonder that so many lack any purpose or meaning to their lives?
As Susan Blackmore, psychologist and disciple of Richard Dawkins said, “If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we are here for absolutely no reason at all.”
TW: I can imagine an atheist saying that her daughter, for example, gives her life meaning.
JS: But hardly ultimate meaning, since both mother’s and daughter’s entire lives are just a blink of an eye in the uniformitarian cosmic scheme. Bertrand Russell said in his anti-Christian book Religion and Science:
Man, as a curious accident in a backwater, is intelligible: his mixture of virtues and vices is such as might be expected to result from fortuitous origin.
TW: Would you call her a liar?
JS: Not at all. A lie implies intentional deception, not just falsehood. As you could see from searching our site, we are very sparing with accusations of ‘lying’ (although some evolutionists justify deception and are just being consistent), as opposed to having a faulty interpretive framework. (However, we won’t deny that this prior adoption of this faulty framework is culpable according to Romans 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:3–7 and foolish (Psalm 14:1). But the point remains that a valid deduction from a faulty framework is not a lie.)
The fact that Christianity has lost an enormous amount of cultural influence in Europe, America and even Australia is without dispute. A recent book, Apostate – The Men who Destroyed the Christian West documents how and why the decline and fall of Western Christian civilization occurred.
Charles Darwin is of course the dominant person on the list of men who destroyed the Christian west.
Darwinian Evolution theories now dominate at least 99% of higher education in America, only 1% of all public and private universities maintain a God centered epistemology and metaphysics in the matter of origins. In 1850 (before Darwin and the Theory of Evolution) virtually all leading scientists and philosophers were Christian men. The world they inhabited was created by God. He had created wise laws that brought about the adaption of all organisms to one another and to their environment. The basic principles proposed by Darwin stand in total conflict with this worldview.
Eliminating God from science enabled Godlessness to prevail everywhere, in classrooms, media, entertainment and politics. Charles Darwin’s naturalistic materialism has so changed the Western metaphysics that the average person hardly senses God’s providential interaction with the world, let alone His existence. The Southern Baptist denomination reports 88% of children raised in Christian families leave the church as soon as they leave home (p. 254)
Swanson concludes: “the impact that Charles Darwin has had on the lives of hundreds of millions of Christian families is overwhelming. It is an undeniable fact that the Christian faith was far stronger 150 years ago in Europe and America. Now their 21st century grandchildren are pagans, atheists, homosexuals, witches and atheist scientists. The sheer number that will be in hell because of Charles Darwin’s commitment to ‘murder God’ is too much – and too tortuous to fathom.” (p. 142).
The other men Swanson says played a role in the decline of Christianity, Hitler, Karl Marx, John Dewey, Ernest Hemingway, Mark Twain, John Steinbeck, , Friedrich Nietzsche were all powerfully influenced by Charles Darwin.
As stated in my last post, sadly leaders of the largest Church denominations have unwittingly accepted Evolution as fact and distorted Scripture to fit, with disastrous consequences. Fortunately, God has raised up organisations such as Creation Ministries to equip His Church with powerful resources such as the recent “Evolution’s Achilles’Heels” to counter this threat. Check out this valuable resource on http://www.creation.com.
Philosopher Thomas Nagel, who made a serious challenge to materialism in his book Mind and Cosmos,1 is still the focus of heated debate.
At a gathering of philosophers and scientists that included Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, a workshop on naturalism turned into an all-out attack on Nagel, a Professor of Law and Philosophy at New York University.
Nagel’s claim that materialists’ conception of nature is wrong was too much for the workshop participants, according to Andrew Ferguson, a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.
In an article titled ‘The Heretic’, Ferguson discussed what happened in the workshop and also considered why Nagel’s book so angered his critics.2
His report is challenging reading, he asks probing questions of his own about materialism in general while sometimes poking fun at philosophers and scientists.
Ferguson is taken by what he sees as Nagel’s challenging approach:
His working assumption is, in today’s intellectual climate, radical: If the materialist, neo-Darwinian orthodoxy contradicts common sense, then this is a mark against the orthodoxy, not against common sense. When a chain of reasoning leads us to deny the obvious, we should double-check the chain of reasoning before we give up on the obvious.
Tellingly, Ferguson points out:
Nagel’s touchier critics have accused him of launching an assault on science, when really it is an assault on the nonscientific uses to which materialism has been put.
Sadly consensus science has a poor record. In fact the task of science has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science on the contrary requires only one investigator who happens to be right.
Dr Ignaz Semmelweiss, a Hungarian surgeon, was one of those investigators who was right. He discovered that ‘childbed fever’ which typically caused a ten to thirty percent mortality level, could largely be abolished if doctors simply washed their hands in a chlorine solution before examining pregnant mothers.
The compelling evidence however failed to impress his superiors and he was eventually dismissed from the clinic even though the mortality rate for his patients was essentially zero. Semmelweis’s procedure went contrary to the whole theory of medical consensus existing in his day. He spent the last years of his life unsuccessfully trying to convince European doctors of his systems effectiveness. He ended his life in a mental hospital and his ideas forgotten until Dr Joseph Lister took up the battle this time successfully.
The story of Dr Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen is much the same. In 1795 he suggested that the fevers which were the number one killer of women following childbirth were an infectious process and he was able to prevent/cure them. The consensus said NO…. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right/same conclusion. These are but two of many examples of scientists resistance to accepting the truth when it conflicts with accepted dogma.
Evolution is also an entrenched dogma despite the overwhelming evidence for amazing design of life and the universe. Since the discovery of the complexity of DNA (ENCODE PROJECT) and sub-microscopic cell machinery of irreducible complexity there is a growing number of eminent scientists embracing intelligent design. Why the establishment is so wedded to materialism and evolutionary naturalism is perhaps best explained by Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and probably one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology.
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment , a commitment to materialism. It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations no matter how counter- intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist from Kansas State University said it more succinctly: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”
Evolution sheds no light on the beginning of the Universe and life. It postulates matter, energy and time brought this beautiful orderly Cosmos into being, with its intricate life forms, its complex natural laws, its intangible moral qualities and the creative and reasoning powers of man. Even Aristotle and Plato knew this speaks of infinite intelligence and yet evolution insists blind chance can account for it all. At a foundational level we are involved in a battle of world views.
Christians know God, so the idea that matter and energy and blind chance can produce the Cosmos we inhabit is absurd.
Recommended reading: By Design, Dr Jonathan Sarfati, The Design Inference, Dr William Dembski, The Edge of Evolution, Dr Michael Behe and of course www.creation.com
Dr Richard E Smalley was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1996 for discovery and research on a totally new allotrope of carbon. Many researchers date the dawn of the modern nanotechnology field to Dr Smalley’s “buckyball” discovery.
Dr Richard (Rick) Smalley M.A. PhD Princeton University was the Hackerman Professor of Chemistry, Physics & Astronomy at Rice University, Houston Texas.
Professor Smalley’s many awards included eight honorary doctor of science awards.
Whilst sceptical of religion most of his life, Rick Smalley became a Christian only in his last years, partly due to his intensive study of intelligent design.
He claimed that Darwinian evolution had been given its death blow due to the advances in genetics and cell biology and that it was now clear that biological evolution could not have occurred.
If evolution is dead as so many leading scientists now acknowledge, isn’t it time it was buried.
The real problem is revealed in the following quotes from leading evolutionists.
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” Dr Scott Todd, Kansas State University.
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create as apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive , no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.” Professor Richard Lewontin (retired Harvard University evolutionary biologist and geneticist).