Science and God are Not in Conflict, revised Part 1

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.  Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.”                                  (Ps. 19:1-2)

            A recent scientific discovery now illuminates our understanding of genetic mutations, which can be chosen by natural selection in the wild or by the artificial selection of human breeding. 

            Some genetic mutations produce helpful variant traits, which can now be tracked in a broad range of living organisms, thanks to the hard work of the 10-year project to map the human DNA genome.

            What initially took years of painstaking effort mapping the 3.5-billion letters of DNA letter-by-letter in humans, now can map the DNA sequence of a particular breed of dog, for example, in an afternoon as a result of faster computers and specialized software programs.

            Thanks to improved technology, we are now able to track-down helpful changes/mutations in the DNA, and match these mutations to their actualized traits…the physical characteristics they produce.

            This new research has revealed that Darwin’s theory of evolution is in actuality a process of devolution.[1] 

            This is discussed in an interview of biochemist, professor, and author Dr. Michael Behe in Socrates in the City, by Eric Metaxas.

            It turns out that genetic mutations do not add new informationto the DNA strand that if so, might support Darwin’s theory that the mutation/selection process is capable over long periods of time of producing enough complex, innovative new features to explain the origin of species. 

            Developments like the fully functional winged flight of birds, the visual sight of an owl, the running speed of the cheetah, the underwater sonar capacity of a dolphin, bipedal upright walking, human speech, and the human mind require vast amounts of complex, specified, and coherently integrated systems of information.

            Molecular biochemistry is now telling us that devolution is instead a process that breaks individual genes in the existing DNA sequence of chemical letters, not adding new creative information but subtracting information from the DNA code.

            This is much different from adding blocks of new and different cell-types in clustered groups to create the one-step leap from a Precambrian jellyfish to a Cambrian Trilobite or Wiwaxia, which I am proposing in this book as the explanation for biological development.

            But devolution does brilliantly explain the microevolution that enables adaptation to differing geographical and ecological environments, without the need to extrapolate this process into the much larger theoretical concept of macroevolution to explain the vast diversity of life progressing over the course of geological history.

            The human breeding of a prototype wolf to produce the variant forms of a Golden Retriever, Great Dane, or Black Labrador dog over many generations, involves at the molecular level in the cell the breakage of particular genes that code for specific characteristics. 

            Scientists can now identify and track these broken genes from wolf to new breed of dog, resulting in a reduction rather than an addition of genetic information creating damaged genes that will not go back in the reverse direction to recover this original lost information.

            This means according to modern genetic biochemistry that the entire program of Darwinian evolution is in reality a process of conservative change around the margins, and not radically progressive macroevolution as originally theorized.

            Instead, biology has strict boundary limits around the change-effects of beneficial genetic mutations, which we can now track through empirical scientific investigation.

I especially like the description of how we can now trace the outward physical changes from a grizzly bear to a polar bear, at the level of specific genes in the cell being broken and damaged, thus identifying the removal of information (devolving) rather than adding new innovative information.

Breaking certain genes within the cells of the polar bear not only removes the brown color of the grizzly bear’s fur to produce white fur, but creates an ensemble of newly grouped broken genes that produces the polar bear’s ability to metabolize the high fat content of seals, and also adds all of the accompanying new lifestyle habits that polar bears need to survive and reproduce in the extreme cold weather of the arctic environment.

The combination of traits that differentiates the grizzly bear from the polar bear, using the Darwinian gradualism of “nature makes no sudden leaps” no longer stacks-up when all of the evidence is examined as a whole.

The incredibly tight engineering tolerances of selecting just the right genes to break at the cellular level to create the completed life-form of a polar bear, when combined with the totally independent factors of the prior fitness of the arctic environment in terms of biodiversity and a complex ecosystem, logically cancels-out the materialistic assertion that raw nature can coordinate these factors into function and fit on its own.

The inference to the best explanation now points to an intelligent designing agent who can identify the specific DNA code letters contained in gene sequences, and break the genes in blocks of clustered groups to produce the new cell-types to create a polar bear from a grizzly bear.

            Quoting two passages from Dr. Behe’s book:

“The molecular parts of the cell are elegantly arranged to fulfill many subsidiary purposes that must blend together in service of the large overall purpose of forming life.  As we’ll see in this book, no unintelligent, undirected process—neither Darwin’s mechanism nor any other—can account for that.”

“It seems, then, that the magnificent Ursus maritimus (polar bear) has adjusted to its harsh environment mainly by degrading genes that its ancestors already possessed.  Despite its impressive abilities, rather than evolving, it has adapted predominantly by devolving.  What that portends for our conception of evolution is the principal topic of this book.”[2] 

            The devolution that occurs in living cells that produces the suite of broken and damaged genes that in turn produce the variation of physical traits that changes a grizzly bear into a polar bear, does not explain how a bear comes into existence in the first-place.

            The information content in living cells that produces the architectural body-plan and lifestyle habits of a bear is much larger and more sophisticated than the microevolutionary processes that put-out variant traits for natural selection to choose from to enhance survivability, to create the differences between a grizzly bear and a polar bear.

From Pondering Our Creation: Christian Essays on Science and Faith.


[1] Michael Behe: Darwin Devolves…Socrates in the City interview, on You Tube dated March 29, 2019

[2] Michael J. Behe, Darwin Devolves (New York: Harper Collins, 2019), 9, 17.

The Cambrian Explosion…and the Abraham Explosion 1

            In the Cambrian Explosion of 535-million years ago the genetic information that went into the formulation of the new and varied body-plans of complex creatures appearing suddenly in the fossil record, requires explanation.

            The fossil record reveals no transitional, trial-and-error intermediates found in the Precambrian rock layers below the Cambrian geological strata. 

            These missing intermediates would otherwise provide a continuous linkage of incrementally developing life-forms leading-up gradually and seamlessly into this Cambrian Period date of 535-million years ago.

            If in existence they would essentially remove the perplexing phenomenon of this being a sudden and isolated event, of being an abrupt explosion of new life-forms exhibiting newly actualized genetic information at a very specific and definite point in time.

            The Cambrian Explosion is undisputed, universally accepted, scientific fact-based evidence acknowledged by professional paleontologists, biologists, microbiologists, and biochemists around the world.

            If we are a biblical creationist, we can see this new appearance of genetic information and its accompanying physical characteristics in life-forms, as a top-down arrangement of information and body-plan architecture, producing fully functional living organisms in a very brief span of geological time “right out of the box” with no assembly tools required.

            Biblical creationists see the infusion of new genetic information at the Cambrian Explosion as an extension of the same brilliantly creative and ordered input of information that brought the universe into being at the Big Bang in a split-second moment of time around 13.7-billion years ago, and that started complex life going on earth about 3.8-billion years ago.

            These are two events that required unimaginable quantities and qualities of coordinated information to produce the organized complexity, beauty, and functionality we observe in the natural world.  

            One thing that must be included in this discussion is the need for a complimentary level of biodiversity to be in-place to support a new system of living organisms coming into existence, which can be termed as prior fitness.[1]

            This would include the varied lifestyle habits of the many predator/prey relationships, along with the functional coherence of the surrounding ecosystems. 

            This is an integration and coordination of complementary realities that when viewed as a whole, stretches beyond credulity the belief that all of this came into being through materialistic causation, through the self-assembling properties of matter and energy alone.

            Solve the question of the sudden appearance of new genetic information in action in the introduction of new architectural body-plans and lifestyle habits springing into life during the Cambrian Explosion, and only a fraction of the total ensemble of interacting realities has been explained.

            For example, in the 1930’s wolves were unwisely exterminated from Yellowstone National Park in the state of Wyoming, being the prime predator within the biodiversity of a fine-tuned natural ecosystem.

            Without wolves, elk became over-populated, that then over-grazed the vegetation and created serious erosion problems. 

            But equally problematic, coyotes then became the new highest-ranking predator, preying mostly on small rodents, which is also the prey of hawks and owls.  These majestic birds of prey drastically reduced in numbers until wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone decades later, reinstating biodiversity and ecological balance back to the park.[2]

            In the Cambrian Explosion, we not only need to explain the origin of the genetic information that gave rise to this varied group of suddenly immerging new creatures, but also their coordinated lifestyle environment of biodiversity, and the prior fitness set-up within equally complex ecosystems, all requiring information on a quantifiably unimaginable scale.

            If we are a scientific materialist, we must interpret the new appearance of genetic information and its accompanying life-forms during the Cambrian Explosion as a bottom-up arrangement of information. 

            This viewpoint endorses the introduction of novel genetic information building-up in gradual steps sequenced over time in the preceding Precambrian Period over several hundred million years, slowly progressing in the positive direction from the simple to the complex.

            This hypothesized, bottom-up arrangement from the simple to the complex, is currently theorized to be achieved through malleable, developmental gene regulatory network molecules that have the flexible capacity to build-up and store the required body-plan information over the long span of the Precambrian time-period. 

            This genetic information is released by these regulatory networks that are “re-wired” at the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary.  This creates the varied and complex life-forms we see radiate-out in the Cambrian Explosion.[3]

            The developmental gene regulatory networks (DGRN’s) instruct the different cell-types where to position themselves during embryonic development, to perform their particular functions as bones, muscles, tendons, and organs, for example.

            DGRN’s are the molecular control circuits that guide cells in living organisms during the embryonic development phase to reach the end-point, body-plan architectures of becoming a Trilobite, Wiwaxia, Hallucigenia, Opabinia, Marrella, Anomolocaris, and several other creature types, in the Cambrian Period.  

            DGRN’s and other epigenetic factors perform this same function today in crafting unique, differentiated, and discontinuous architectural body-plans in the ten-million different living species on earth.

            The current theory being researched of the possible flexibility of DGRN’s proposes that this body-plan information was latent and hidden at the molecular level, ready and waiting to produce the new physical characteristics in life-forms rapidly emerging suddenly at the Cambrian Explosion. 

            For millions of years this genetic information was building-up in successive phases inside living cells, being visually undetectable in the simpler life-forms prior to the Cambrian Period, all through purely naturalistic processes.

            At this present time, neither theists nor atheists can point to empirical scientific evidence that supports a materialistic or a creationist explanation for the origin of the vast amount of highly specified, genetic information required to get complex life going to initiate the start of single-cell, self-replicating, living bacteria cells on earth around 3.8-billion years ago.

            Origin of life research has been stuck roughly in the same place for sixty-plus years now[4] ever since Watson and Crick discovered the doubled-stranded DNA molecule in 1953, and its enormously complex and highly specified code of approximately 3.5-billion bits of information (1957), spelled-out using a four-letter chemical alphabet. 

            This is the longest single word in existence, which has been called the language of life.

            The fundamental question facing theists and atheists regarding the explanation of the Cambrian Explosion is how full function could be reached at the start of life…of existence…in a widely varied group of complex organisms that require a minimum of coordinated and integrated parts.

            This requires sophisticated programs of information that exhibit functional coherence that must be simultaneously up-and-running at a very high plateau for new life to survive and replicate itself.

            The organized complexity of the dynamics of gene regulatory networks interacting with DNA and the protein driven molecular machines inside living cells, to produce new and different cell-types, their unique locations inside living organisms, and their specific functions to perform in coordination with other cell-types…already makes the compelling case for the existence of intelligent agency.

            For the biblical creationist, this dilemma is brilliantly sketched-out in the book Darwin’s Black Box (1996) by Michael Behe in the concept he coined as irreducible complexity, that every complex thing has to have a minimum of its parts in-place to produce a well-defined functional essence…whether a skateboard, tennis racket, hair brush, or a full-grown African elephant.


[1] Michael Denton: The Miracle of the Cell, published Oct. 28, 2020 by Discovery Science, on You Tube.

[2] Helene Grimaud: Living With Wolves, 2002 podcast on You Tube.

[3] Stephen Meyer & Charles Marshall: Darwin’s Doubt, debate hosted by Premier Radio, Nov. 30, 2013 on You Tube

[4] James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life, published Mar. 18, 2019 by Discovery Science, on You Tube. 

Debugging Before, During, and After Completed Assembly

            Even though the mechanical and robotics engineers, production assembly-line experts, and project engineers may have designed several automobile manufacturing assembly-lines in the past, new innovations in the automobile require additional changes in new assembly-lines.

            Such things as power steering, anti-lock brakes, fuel injection, engines placed in the rear-end of the car, GPS screens built into the dashboard, hands-off backwards steering for parallel parking, Bluetooth© telephone systems, openable sun-roofs, hybrid gas-and-electric fueling, all-electric cars, and a number of other innovations…add new features to be considered and analyzed in terms of the debugging of the mass-production assembly-lines to manufacture new models of automobiles.

            Genetic mutations in living plants and animals, defined as random accidental mistakes (manufacturing assembly-line bugs) being put-out as variant traits to be chosen or rejected by natural selection, is the hallmark, common ancestry feature ofDarwinism, the essence of the theory of macroevolution. 

            But as covered briefly in the essay Are Science and God in Conflict, Dr. Michael J. Behe has written a book entitled Darwin Devolves[1] in which he discusses the recent discoveries in molecular biochemistry that now more accurately describe the mutation/selection processes in biology. 

            Thanks to the recent progress made in gene mapping, scientists can now identify the genetic mutations on the DNA strand and track these specifically to the beneficial traits they put-out to be chosen by natural selection. 

            This explains the variations in finch birds on the Galapagos Islands that Darwin observed in the 1830’s, being innovative variations that do not extend farther than the two lowest taxonomic categories of genus and species.

            This evidence from molecular biochemistry now limits Darwinian evolution to devolution.

            This is an extremely important finding that demonstrates at the gene molecular level of specifically how each living organism puts-out variant traits to better adapt to different ecological environments.

            This scientific discovery that Darwinian evolution is in actuality a process of devolution, shows-up the fallibility of mankind in our original perceptions and assessments. 

            At the same time, it reveals the unimaginable brilliance of design in the creation of the natural world which compellingly argues for the existence of an Intelligent Agent God.

            The sun appears phenomenally to go around the earth, and human intellect can take credit for eventually finding the right answer with Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, that the earth spins as it rotates around the sun. 

This gives the true explanation for the appearance that the sun is going around the earth, from the vantage point of someone standing upon the earth watching as the sun hourly travels across the sky from east to west.

            The stars in the night sky appear to be unmoving, the universe giving all indication of being static and therefore intuitively eternal and unchanging.

            “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) was confirmed by the discovery of the Big Bang creation of the universe at a moment in time about 13.7-billion years ago. 

            The reality of a Big Bang beginning of the universe that existed from the first moments of creation was waiting for science and technology to invent new telescopes large enough to peer deep into outer space.  This produced the empirical evidence to overturn the conventional wisdom of a static and unchanging universe, which was wrongly based upon phenomenal appearances.

            Since Darwin, the controversial but growing consensus in biology was that genetic mutations could go in a positive direction, accumulating over time to form the creative masterpieces of winged flight, the eyesight of a night owl, the running speed of a cheetah, the bi-pedal upright walking of human beings, human speech, the singing of birds, and human intellectual and moral reasoning.

            Prior to this new Age of Information, it was assumed that genetic mutation and natural selection must have the creative power to sustain the ever-growing proliferation of the vast diversity of life we now see in the natural world.

            Like the incorrect orbital arrangement of the planets in our solar system started by Aristotle through the phenomenal observation of the apparent movement of the sun, and like the appearance of the static and unchanging nature of the universe based upon looking up at the stars of the night sky, Charles Darwin created the momentum of the macroevolutionary thinking of major innovative change over time in biology.

            This produced a blind-spot to the entirely counterintuitive idea that intelligent agency could intentionally build into the manufacturing assembly-line process of life a small number of “bugs” brilliantly designed to produce a limited amount of beneficial variation.  These bugs facilitate adaptability within species through the actual “breakage” or degrading of existing genes.

            Until the very recent time that science and technology could empirically question the Darwinian orthodoxy that beneficial mutations were entirely random, I do not believe that anyone including theists anticipated this new development coming from the field of molecular biochemistry.

            The idea that the mutation/selection process was not a result of mindless and undirected processes based upon the phenomenal, observed output of beneficial traits, but counterintuitively could intentionally have been the built-in product of intelligent agency…was a concept that escaped everyone.

            Previously stuck for decades in the theoretical paradigm of Darwinian macroevolution of always progressing incrementally forward from the simple to the complex, this new concept of devolution of how genes could be broken in order to put-out beneficial mutations…is engaging scientific researchers to this day. 

            Intelligently designing-in “breaks” in the DNA, of damaged genes randomly placed throughout a population of organisms to produce the in-built variation in the finches that could then adapt and survive on the varied islands of the Galapagos Archipelago…is novel ingenuity “squared.”

            It runs entirely counter to the mass-production assembly-line trial-runs to debug the process of the manufacture of numerous identical products.

            Human manufacturing of identical repetitive products attempts to identify and remove bugs through trial-runs, but it now appears that cells intentionally use broken and degraded genes to produce beneficially adaptive variant traits, the opposite of what we might expect.

            This goes back to the lessons-learned over the course of the Scientific Revolution thatwe have to dig deeper beyond obvious phenomenal appearances to discover the real truth about things.

            This reveals a Creator God in the Bible that has set-up the natural world in such a way as to provide not only an orderly and intelligible environment to scientifically investigate, but also our innate capacity to be able to conduct science in an effort to find real and genuine truth, no matter how phenomenally counterintuitive things initially appear going in.

             That modern scientific investigation could discover at the molecular level that genetic mutations are the cause of the beneficial physical variation within species, as a result of the breakage and loss of information on the DNA double-helix strand of genetic code, is mind-boggling to contemplate.    

            This discovery takes macroevolution off-the-board as a viable player, as a purely materialistic explanation for the origin and diversity of life.

            This elevates a true reality that has always been there in the natural world, the existence of an Intelligent Agent God who created a world of reality that often requires digging deep to find real truth.

“And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”                                                   (Jer. 29:13)

            Mother Nature could never take the proactive debugging of mass-production, manufacturing assembly-lines and morph this into beneficial genetic mutations chosen by natural selection to better facilitate adaptation.

            Here is where the modern industrial manufacturing idea of debugging before, during, and after the assembly of products on mass-production assembly-lines inside large factories sets-up the backstory context for understanding the counterintuitive quality of the recent discovery in molecular biochemistry…that evolution is actually a process of devolution.  


[1] Michael J. Behe, Darwin Devolves (New York: Harper Collins, 2019).

Is a Solely Material Universe Plausible?

            From the beginning of our lives as babies and small children, we are conditioned internally and by our surroundings to take things for granted.

            We put our faith and trust in the parenting skills of our parents.  We accept as truth what we are taught in elementary school.  We live our lives in functioning bodies that at a basic level automatically and without thought takes-in breathes into our lungs, digests food in our stomachs, and engineers physical and intellectual growth from childbirth to adulthood. 

            And for the most part we assimilate into the local, cultural standards and mores of the historical era and geographical region we are born into.

            These and a thousand other things we take for granted.

            If we are fortunate enough to be exposed to the concept of critical-thinking, this begins in the home through enlightened parents, or introduced through an exceptional teacher in high school, or encountered in college courses of study, or modeled through a Spirit-led, apologetics-minded Christian church pastor or teacher.

            But many people in a number of different fields are naturally inquisitive and analytical enough to question the conventional wisdom of the things that many of us take for granted.

            This comes from an innate sense of independence of thought and will, that is unique to human beings.

            The dynamic between the free-thinking of questioning the currently accepted wisdom and the opposite imperative to fit-in and “not make waves,” is the fascinating region of creative innovation and invention that produces ever-improving governments, literary genres, styles of music, new clothing fashions, new and different recipes for cooking foods, the variety of sports, a free-and-fair journalistic press, and innovative scientific investigations to name a few.   

            This brings to mind the humorous saying: “The definition of a pioneer is someone who gets shot in the back with arrows.” 

            At its best and highest ideal, the modern Scientific Revolution is a fact-based exploration of the many questions inquisitive human beings have about the origin and function of the organized complexity we observe in the natural living and non-living world.

            The mandate of scientific investigation is to take everything apart, to be free to question every phenomenon in existence in the reality of this universe, to explore through the scientific method the real truths that underlie the operation of the things we sometimes erroneously take for granted.

            This began with the extraordinary revelation by Copernicus in the 1500’s that our planet earth revolves around the sun, extending all the way to our modern times of the discovery by Watson and Crick in 1953 and 1957 of the complexity of the genetic information contained within DNA, accurately called the language of life.

            As mentioned in an earlier essay, if we watch on You Tube on the Internet the lecture “The Origin of the Elements”[1] by Dr. Edward Murphy, then follow this up by watching “Gunter Bechly Explains What The Fossil Evidence Really Says,”[2] then take a short tea or coffee-break and come back to watch “The Return of the God Hypothesis: Interview with Stephen Meyer”[3] in which he describes the quantum physics occurring at the Big Bang beginning of the universe, the legitimate question then arises as to whether a purely materialistic universe is factually or even theoretically plausible anymore?

            This fundamental question can now be asked and answered by a more informed modern man, comprised of scientists and laymen alike, of what is a universe and how and why did our particular universe attain its remarkably organized complexity?

            At the most fundamental level of analytical thinking, how would the initial conditions at the first split-seconds of the universe generate such exquisite realities as light, gravity, the expansion rate of the cosmos, and the elements of the Periodic Table into complex, specified, and coherently integrated systems of information to produce function…a phrase I have borrowed throughout this book first coined by Dr. William A. Dembski.[4]

            It is hopelessly difficult now to connect all of the dots from the first introduction of hydrogen, helium, and lithium at the time of the Big Bang extending all the way through 13.7-billion years to the sophisticated architectural body-plans and lifestyle habits of human beings supported by 215 different cell-types…using the materialistic model of blind, mindless, indifferent, trial-and-error, accidental, and undirected processes.

            The complex, highly specified, and coherently integrated systems of information in the natural world have too much targeted detail to organize by accident in small steps from previously nothing physical to the coordinated function we observe and take for granted today.

            Modern science has uncovered evidence that reveals purpose-filled trajectories towards well-defined outcomes in a dizzying number of coordinated realities in the natural world, that always trend towards mature function.

            It is inconceivable at the Big Bang that matter and energy on their own could coalesce into well-ordered essences that are saturated with clearly discernable purpose, that by definition must exclude a near infinity of other options that would lead to trial-and-error failures.

            We can follow at the atomic level first the creation of hydrogen, helium, and lithium to the incredibly fine-tuned formation of oxygen and carbon inside super-hot stars, that must collapse and explode as supernovas to spread the full array of the other elements of the Periodic Table out into the cosmos to become part of planets like our earth, and living physical bodies like our own.

            To credit these past events to mere random and undirected processes is logically absurd in this new Age of Information.

            We can follow the dots that connect the formation of our planet earth through the near infinity of individual events that have a progressive theme running through all of the past geological eras to achieve the finalized and completed outcomes we observe today.

            The idea that matter and energy could self-assemble all of this into realizable function must be rejected as hopelessly untenable.


[1] The Origin of the Elements, by Jefferson Lab, November 20, 2012 with Dr. Edward Murphy, University of Virginia.

[2] Gunter Bechly Explains What The Fossil Evidence Really Says, published by Discovery Science, November 23, 2021.

[3] The Return of the God Hypothesis: Interview with Stephen Meyer, streamed live on May 13, 2020 on Dr. Sean McDowell.

[4] William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999).

The Thief on the Cross 1

            The Bible is based upon historical people and events.  The cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ is defended on the basis of an appeal to the reliability of factual evidence.

            If truth in the world devolves into the relativism of conspiracy theories and outright lies, if truth is perceived as a malleable reality that can be shaped into whatever narrative we choose to believe despite whatever the factual evidence says, then the Christian’s appeal to an independent, historical standard of universal truth in sharing the gospel message…disappears.

            In the 2009 debate at Oxford between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins on the topic of Has Science Buried God[1], part-way into the discussion Richard Dawkins appeals to the all-purpose generalization that the Darwinian model of genetic mutations and natural selection explains the origin of the complexity of DNA and the molecular machinery inside living cells.

            Richard Dawkins at this point in the debate regarding the question of how DNA came into being, asserts in the most general terms that Darwinian evolution has already answered this question.

            The problem here is that Darwinian evolution has not answered this question at all.

            Simply stating that it has in the form of an assertion, does not make it so.

            The jump from zero bits of information before the existence of life, to the roughly 3.0 to 3.5 billion bits of information needed to support the architectural body-plan of the first living single-cell bacteria that can both survive and reproduce itself, cannot be explained through small, gradually incremental steps no matter how long science ponders this origin-of-life dilemma.

            From the vantage point of 2022 now looking back in hindsight, the accumulation of factual evidence regarding the phenomena in the natural world has turned the centuries-long science and God debate 180-degrees around.

            The difficulty in arguing for or against Darwinian evolution in 2022, is that mechanics is easily confused with agency.

            On the surface, mechanics appears to be interchangeable with agency.

            For scientific materialists like Richard Dawkins, mechanics is agency.

            There is complex, organized molecular biochemical mechanics in action inside living cells, observed and studied by modern science.

            But for scientific materialists, genetic mutation producing variant physical traits chosen by natural selection for enhanced survival and reproduction, is a naturalistic process of agency that is integral within the mechanics itself, combining mechanics and agency together as one…without the need for any independent source of guiding intelligence.

            We know from logic that the mechanics comprising an airplane cannot be assembled to achieve function while the airplane is in flight.

            The airplane must be filled-up with gasoline or jet-fuel, all of its parts lubricated, and a thorough pre-flight check made before the airplane takes-off and becomes airborne.

            The gradual development of an airplane to become air-worthy does not overlap into a final assembly phase of necessary parts while in flight.

            The logical inconsistency in biology utilizing Darwinian evolution is the question of at what point in development over time is the living organism airborne and in flight.

            Is “flight” achieved gradually lifting-off the ground while microscopic molecular machines and the blueprint information in DNA are crafting different cells-types to create an elephant or a giraffe?  Is embryonic development analogous to the jetliner being assembled pre-flight, piece-by-piece on the assembly-line inside a hangar?

            Or is “flight” defined for living organisms at the moment they are fully assembled to successfully function in the outside world, prepared ahead of time to blend immediately into the fast-lane of predator/prey relationships in their particular biodiverse environment and ecological niche?

            For human beings created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), the process of producing a flight-worthy airplane first occurs on the conceptual drawing-board within the imagination of the aeronautical engineer.

            I can speak from personal experience that a new house is never built on-the-fly, making it up as we go.

            The general assertion that Darwinian evolution can account for the origin of DNA and the molecular machinery inside living cells, and that this can then coordinate to produce the ten-million varied living species on earth, is in essence cutting-out the conceptual thought-process of the aeronautical engineer, and replacing it with the mechanical process of the airplane assembly taking place in the hangar…self-assembly mechanics and agency being one and the same thing.   

            The idea that DNA is needed to produce proteins, and proteins are needed to produce DNA, without the guidance of intelligent agency, is a simultaneous chicken-and-egg, who is the lead dancer in a two-person dance, that would be as nonsensical as assembling an airplane in flight.

            The idea that Darwinian evolution can gradually produce incremental function spread-out over the entire process pre-birth and post-birth is not supported by a logical interpretation of the evidentiary facts, requiring too many sequentially coordinated assemblies.

            But the idea that function is acquired immediately in a moment of time somewhere along the process of development is not allowed in naturalistic materialism, being a single-point of realizing the future defining outcome of the thing being assembled far in advance of that defining outcome being realized…in essence injecting foresight into gradual development having a definite outcome “in mind” before the thing reaches a final outcome.

            The quality of personal oversight that creates a flight-worthy airplane that gradually approaches function part-by-part, occurs step-by-step in the manufacturing assembly-line hangar.

            But real flight is only actualized after the completed and fuel-up airplane is rolled-out onto the runway for take-off.

            The assembly of an airplane is never completed in flight.

            This reality appears to identify clearly differentiated lines between conception, assembly, and actualized flight for an airplane.

            The dilemma for scientific materialism is that it has to identify where and when their version of impersonal agency can be pinpointed in the sequential mechanics of the embryonic development of living organisms that approximate foresight, of when each organism begins to home-in on its uniquely defined and completed essence to be capable of taking-off and becoming “airborne” as an elephant, lion, salmon, or human being.  

            The materialistic process must be chopped-up into small enough individual activities to incorporate some measure of chance-produced self-assembly, but this methodology also chops-up foresight that can get an assembly of body-parts to coalesce into functional body-plans capable of survival and reproduction.

            If I am seeing this rightly, the scientific materialist is saying here that Mother Nature through the mechanics of the process itself is the identifiable agent, that impersonal mechanics, agency, and function are all synonymous.

            This is nonsensical.

            I think this is what Richard Dawkins is inferring in this 2009 debate when he says that Darwinian evolution explains DNA and the molecular machinery inside the living cell…the mechanism of evolution itself being the designing agent.

            A scientific materialist cannot go beyond mechanics to include the foresight of well-aimed trajectories towards preconceived outcomes, because this invokes the need for an extremely intelligent designer in the complex theater of biological life.

            As said previously in another essay, some scientists for decades have been telling us that God is dead, and that science alone is the only reliable path to discover genuine truth.

            But today the strange and counterintuitive realization is surfacing that the mere possession of a mass of raw data alone does not automatically or naturally lead to a true verdict.

            Facts can be manipulated and interpreted into various competing spins containing half-truths that are difficult to conclusively adjudicate.

            If some scientists today are falsely spinning the narrative to fit within a materialistic worldview, then the reliably objective nature of the scientific enterprise has been corrupted to the point of calling into question the capacity of science to discover real truth.

            If scientific materialists are telling us one thing, but the facts-on-the-ground are telling us something else, then we have reached a new fork-in-the-road that I believe was not anticipated at the start of the Scientific Revolution.

            I do not think that scientific materialists in the mid-twentieth century thought that the database of complex, specified, and coherently integrated systems of information in the natural living and non-living world could reach the point where the empirical, fact-based character of the scientific enterprise would compellingly point towards the absolute need for intelligent agency as the best explanation for the origin and structure of our universe.

            If the huge advances through scientific research have reached the conclusion that human nature on its own has the proclivity towards the divisions, factions, and schisms of competing ideologies despite a full plate of the facts…I believe this would be an unexpected realization.


[1] Has Science Buried God debate at Oxford 2009 between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, hosted by the Fixed Point Foundation, on You Tube.

Science and God: The Giant Asian Hornet

            The 2009 book Why Evolution Is True by Dr. Jerry A. Coyne…an emeritus professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, is a well-written, interesting, and up-to-date expose in support of Darwinian macroevolution.

            But one of the colossal ironies of our modern times is that when I read this book by around page 80 and thereafter, his descriptions of the wonders of nature have put forth so much brilliant detail that I begin to sense that he is unwittingly making a cumulative case argument in favor of intelligent agency. 

            Yet as a Darwinian evolutionist, intelligent design in nature is the very thing he is trying to disprove.[1]

            So coordinated and integrated are the architectural body-plans and lifestyle habits of living organisms, so well “thought-out” are their instinctual programs for fitness that as our modern understanding of them increases, then the more implausible becomes the naturalistic explanations for their conceptual origin and design.

            In other words, the more we learn about the natural world through science, the less plausible becomes the gradualistic, trial-and-error, self-organizing, secular story for the creation of the universe and all of its natural phenomena.

            In this new Age of Information, increasing knowledge is narrowing the worldview choices down to intelligent agency as the only plausible explanation for the origin of the complex, highly specified, and coherently integrated systems of information we now see operative everywhere in the natural living and non-living world.

            One example of the paradoxical dilemma for scientific materialists of having to harmonize the marvels of the living world with purely naturalistic causations, absent designing agency, is found in Dr. Coyne’s book of the description of the havoc that is created when the giant Asian hornet (wasp) on its home turf attacks a colony of European honeybees imported by humans into Japan.[2]  

            The giant Asian hornet is the world’s largest hornet…about two inches long, having a three-inch wing-span that can fly 25 miles per hour and travel up to 60 miles a day…and is “a predatory wasp especially common in Japan.”

            When a lone hornet scout finds a honeybee colony, it marks the nest with a drop of pheromone scent which then guides a group of 20 to 30 attacking hornets which can decimate in a couple of hours honeybees numbering up to 30,000.

            The giant Asian hornet has large jaws that can bite the heads off the smaller honeybees at the rate of 40 per minute.

            But the native honeybees in Japan have an incredible defense tactic that defies naturalistic explanation.

            These native honeybees send-out an internal alarm within the nest when they first detect the hornet intruder.  They then quickly form a group of around 100 honeybees at the entrance into the nest, and when the lone scout first enters through the beehive opening to begin its investigation these 100 honeybees form a tight cluster around the now immobilized giant Asian hornet. 

            In coordinated unison the honeybees in this cluster all flap their wings, before the giant Asian hornet can mark the beehive with a scented pheromone.  This raises the temperature to around 115º F within this cluster, but also produces carbon dioxide (CO²) that further raises the temperature up to as high as 122º F[3]…which is not lethal to the honeybees but kills the giant Asian hornet scout.  

            But the recently imported European honeybee colonies lack this initial defense strategy to kill the roving scout, and are quickly and completely overwhelmed by a marauding band of attacking giant Asian hornets, guided by a drop of liquid pheromone scent placed at the opening of the beehive by the hornet scout as the result of a successful reconnaissance.

            The question then arises of how the native Asian honeybees could acquire this novel instinctual defense tactic of a brilliantly functional, coordinated approach of just the right high-temperature of 117-122º F and the accumulation of CO² gas that would kill its enemy. 

            Using the accidental trial-and-error approach of mindless and undirected materialistic mechanisms would have to produce catastrophic honeybee failures along the incremental, small-step transitional route of gradual progression at successive rises in temperature.

            For argument’s sake, if we start with an ambient temperature inside the honeybee’s nest at 100º F, and go upward at 2º F increments over the 16-20 minutes needed to kill the giant Asian hornet scout, this results in 8 failed trials…catastrophic defeats…until the temperature in the honeybee cluster can reach the successful goal of 115-117º F (100º, 102º, 104º, 106º, 108º, 110º, 112º, 114º, 115º F).

            This defense mechanism of the Asian honeybee is an all or nothing affair.

            At the developmental, trial-and-error test phase thousands or millions of years ago, the Asian honeybees upon reaching the mid-point of 108º F in their group clustering, would have to “know” through foresight to keep going until they reached the deadly temperature of 115º F. 

            Our modern Age of Information tells us that the only thing capable of the engineering concept of constrained optimization of a sequential series of decisional yes/no choices aimed specifically at reaching targeted end-point outcomes in the future, using foresight…is intelligent agency.

            This is not fact-based evidence that supports the loosely termed “behavior adaptation” used by Jerry B. Coyne to enlist the defense strategy of the native Asian honeybee into the doctrinal camp of Darwinian macroevolution.

             The more plausible analysis of this remarkable reality in nature is that the balanced predator/prey relationship between the giant Asian hornet and their native honeybee counterpart cannot be explained through an incrementally escalating “arms war” of competing features over time. 

            The materialistic approach to explain developmental progress can only produce an oscillating back-and-forth battleground failure for one side or the other until they both reach the balanced stand-off we observe today between these two native, insect Asian combatants.

            We therefore do not have to uncritically swallow the idea that the European honeybees imported into the foreign environment of Japan will over time (thousands of years?) through the accidental method of trial-and-error likewise discover this one successful defensive strategy on their own in isolation, all the while suffering heavy losses in route to finding the very specific information that 117º F combined with CO² will defeat this otherwise unstoppable predator.

            This complex, highly specified, and coherently integrated information is intelligently designed upfront into the DNA and the gene regulatory networks of the native Asian honeybees, but is clearly absent in the European honeybees, evidenced when they are imported across the continent to Japan.

            This highlights the original intent found in this molecular biochemical information that must reside within the living cells of the honeybee…being “unnaturally” overridden through the independent intervention of the agency of unknowing human beekeepers in Japan and Europe.

            How exactly would a naturalistic Mother Nature provide the intentional foresight and directional determination to persist through the enumerable lethal failures of a hypothetical trial-and-error process…to reach a successful outcome for the honeybees defending themselves? 

            This information-based defensive strategy by the native Asian honeybee colonies is successfully functional and universally operative in Japan. 

            We do not currently see an experimental progressive transition part-way in development within the imported European honeybee colonies pointing towards the future perfected use of this defense tactic commonly utilized by their Asian cousins.

            Word has not spread through the natural “gossip” of inter-breeding and genetic drift from the successful Asian honeybees to the unsuccessful newcomer European honeybees imported into Japan (if this is even possible).  This vital genetic information for survival would then be actualized through the mechanisms of molecular biochemistry within the cell.

            But behavioral adaptability, inter-breeding, and genetic drift do not take us back the necessary one-step to explain the introduction of this information-based, novel defense strategy of the Asian honeybee…in the first place.

            At this point someone will logically impose the Darwinian mindset that given millions of years for development, would not a series of trial-and-error failures and successes eventually lead to the perfected defense strategy of the Asian honeybee?

            The skeletal explanatory framework upon which to connect the various factual data-points used in the standard methodology for all scientific research…is in scientific jargon called a theoretical hypothesis. 

            This hypothetical framework says from a philosophically naturalistic viewpoint that the only acceptable route for the Asian honeybee to achieve function over time is through the small steps of gradualistic development.

            The obvious problem that should shout-out to us here in this example is that given millions of years, the Asian honeybees in route towards a functional defense strategy this brilliantly original and well-conceived, would be annihilated in the naturalistic process of gradually incremental progressive steps before ever reaching successful function.

            Time plus chance does not lead to function when the systems of information are as complex as the defense strategy of the Asian honeybee.

            The fundamental problem in looking at the myriad of diverse instinctual lifestyle habits prolific in the natural living world is that from a materialist worldview it presumes on philosophical grounds that these end-point maturities can be arrived at through the gradualistic process of small incremental steps.

            The skeletal explanatory framework connecting the factual data points is what is wrong here…when the philosophical worldview of scientific materialism is utilized.

            The causal explanation of gradual, incremental, small-step, transitional progressive development does not fill-in this gap of how the Asian honeybee colony obtained this critical survival strategy…because we do not see gradualism universally in action as the mechanism of progressive development in the natural living world.

            There is a reason why there is zero evidence of incremental progressive development in an “arms-race” between the Asian honeybees and the giant Asian hornet…in the past or today.

            The reason is that it simply did not happen that way.

            There is a reason why there is zero evidence of transitional intermediates between mammals, amphibians, fish, birds, reptiles, and insects…in the fossil record.

            The reason is that the ever-increasing complexity of life from single-cell bacteria 3.8-billion years ago to human beings today, did not come about by the process of incremental progressive development.

            It simply did not happen that way.

            This is one of the key points of this book.

            There is no factual evidence for behavioral adaptation for how the Asian honeybees and the giant Asian hornet reached the equilibrium of their advance lifestyle-habits, because this is entirely theoretical based upon the philosophical worldview of naturalistic materialism.

            But there is clear empirical evidence for the functional coherence of the end-point performances of these two insect combatants, because we observe this in action today.

            The facts are not on the side of theoretical behavioral adaptation, but the facts are on the side of creatures universally exhibiting full functionality at their end-points of development.

            The fundamental question for modern science is where does the genetic information in living cells come from that produces the incredibly varied, instinctual predator/prey relationships that actualize though architectural body-plans of mind-boggling specificity and function…that produce a “fit” within biodiversity and ecosystems…in the first place.

            Science is legitimately allowed to use “just so” stories…like Rudyard Kipling’s fanciful story of how the tiger acquired its stripes…to theoretically connect-the-dots between data-points in their initial working hypotheses, until further investigation fills-in more facts.

            This is simply a part of the scientific method that encompasses the human psyche…the methodology of constructing a skeletal explanatory framework upon which to hang the varied pieces of data.

            These “just so” stories theorized by professional scientists are sometimes given an uncritical pass in their simple-to-complex explanations characteristic of scientific materialism.

            Just because Dr. Jerry Coyne explains the defense tactic of the native Asian honeybee colonies against the attack of the giant Asian hornet as behavioral adaptation…as Christians we do not have to buy into this based on the authority of a scientist’s word alone.

            We have the intellectual license to think this through and to arrive at a different conclusion…regarding the skeletal explanatory framework that is being used.

            The fields of the history of science and the philosophy of science have shown that no person is ideology-free…that no person conducting science is free of bias and prejudice.  Every person enters into a science research program having preconceived ideas and some form of a directional agenda.


[1] Jerry A. Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science And Religion Are Incompatible (New York: Penguin Books, 2015).

[2] Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), 111-113.

[3] Wikipedia.org, Asian giant hornet, updated May 20, 2021.

Science and God: Human Development and Evolution

            Modern evolutionists adopt and incorporate the Latin axiom of Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species: “natura non facit saltum”…nature makes no sudden leaps.

            A continuous chain linking together Australopithecus (4-7 million years ago), Homo habilis (2 million years ago), Homo erectus (1.8 million years ago), and Cro-Magnon man which are early Homo sapiens (200,000 years ago)…requires the logical consistency of a uniformly straight, gradually moderate, upward sloping, horizontal graph-line.

            This should clearly illustrate historically recordable milestone events along this progression.

            Darwinian macroevolution applied to human development requires incremental improvements chopped-up into small enough pieces in order to easily progress through the process of genetic mutations acted upon by natural selection. 

            This has to occur over a long, drawn-out period of time.

            This evolutionary progression would reveal human transitional improvements as historically evident milestones spaced-out along the way, both in terms of recognizable physical characteristics and intellectual/lifestyle advancements.

            We cannot adopt gradualism as the axiom that nature makes no sudden leaps over a long period of time in the advancing anatomical and intellectual development of human beings, without some tangible evidence in the intellectual/lifestyle arena to show for it. 

            This should be a non-negotiable presentation of evidentiary fact required of modern evolutionists in support of progressive development, especially as historical time ticks downward in the very recent past decades at 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, and 10 thousand years ago.

            In plain words, we would expect to see a quarterly report-card…a historical audit report…of humanity’s physical and intellectual progress at mid-stride points in time in the distant past. 

            We cannot have sudden leaps forward and a progress report of gradually improving human attributes both at the same time.

            In the hypothetical progression from ancient ancestors to modern humans, a mindless and undirected natural world can provide no preferential leaps forward for mankind. 

            Darwinian macroevolution allows only a slow-moving naturalistic gradualism.   

            Large advances of development in living organisms in biology are called saltations.  They are considered outside the reach of random and undirected processes to bring into being within single creative events.  Saltations require the combination and coordination of too many small genetic mutations to coalesce into one large, beneficially functional trait…to then successfully be chosen by natural selection.   

            If the historical development of human beings was in-fact gradual, this would apply not only to physical traits but also to lifestyle/intellectual advancements.  These advancements must be in a relatively close one-to-one correspondence to the physical traits being put-out by the advancing complexity of new and different cell types introduced over time.  

            Otherwise, the only option left is to have a lump-sum addition of advanced intelligence to human beings at a late, singular point in time…which could only occur through divine creation. 

            The lump-sum addition of human intellectual acuity late in development would create a dichotomy between physical and mental advancements…a reality that becomes more difficult to explain through random and undirected processes.

Human writing as an indicator

            The human invention of writing is a critical, date-stamp indicator of human intellectual progress.

            The invention of writing is dated to as recent a time as 3,200 B.C. in the wedge-shaped cuneiform lettering of Egyptian hieroglyphs.  The cuneiform alphabet in Syria is dated to around 2,000 B.C., and the invention of the 22-sign Phoenician alphabet is dated to around 1,000 B.C.

            The writing of the first five books of the Old Testament…called the Pentateuch…is dated by conservative scholars at around 1,450 B.C.

            The Greeks adopt the Phoenician writing script around 800 B.C.   

            The invention of human writing is therefore placed at only 5,200 years ago.

            There is no evidence of sophisticated, written communication 15,000 years ago, 50,000 years ago, or 150,000 years ago in the very recent past…as a milestone event in human intellectual development.

            The boundary-line between Homo erectus and Homo sapien is generally placed at around 200,000 years ago, which inaugurates the start of what is considered to be modern man.

            It would follow then that the invention of writing, by some exceptionally gifted persons having forwardly progressing I.Q’s above and out in-front of the pack, would have occurred at least as far back as sometime around 200,000 B.C.

            To have a smooth transition of beneficial, variant physical traits moving incrementally forward in a positive direction from the start of Homo erectus at 1.8 million years ago to the start of Homo sapiens at 200,000 years ago…yet have human writing start around 3,200 B.C., is illogically nonsensical.

            For humans to invent writing in 3,200 B.C. and then be standing on the moon in 1969 A.D. is fact-based evidence that argues for the near instantaneous introduction of intellectual capacity.

            This is in stark contrast with Darwin’s notion that nature makes no sudden leaps…in the one and only area where the developments of advancing physical traits and lifestyle habits can be compared side-by-side…in the common descent theory of human beings.

            If Darwinian macroevolution encompasses human development, which it must for the overall theory to be true, we should expect to see the gradual progression of writing, the invention of paper and books, farming, villages, towns, politics, institutionalized civilizations, and other signs of creative intellectual advancements in technology, music, creative writing, and the arts…pioneered in the long ago.

            We should expect to see milestone advancements pushed way back in time, actualized by exceptionally gifted people with higher IQ’s and innate talents according to genetic variation, in relatively small numbers yet producing great effects.

            Charles Lyell, a contemporary and a friend of Darwin, posited the research methodology for the historical sciences such as geology of using the present phenomena to reconstruct events in the past.

            I would suggest here that the wide range of intellectual acuities we observe in humans today, if extrapolated backwards in time according to Lyell’s dictum that the present explains the past, overrules Darwin’s materialistic requirement that nature makes no sudden leaps.

            Intellectual development in human beings does not have to keep pace with physical development on a perfectly precise one-to-one correspondence, one or the other lagging behind slightly at times.

            But if the macroevolutionary scenario put forward by Darwinists is true…which I do not think it is…then the recent time-crunch for the observably rapid intellectual development of human beings, must be spread-out backwards over a much longer period of time.

            We should expect to see preview fore-glimpses of an Alexander the Great, Shakespeare, Stradivarius, Isaac Newton, Rembrandt, Mozart, Darwin, Edison, and Einstein, at repetitive intervals of time counting down the decades between 200,000 B.C. to around 5,000 B.C., for example. 

            This would reveal an unmistakable, upward sloping, gradual ascending progression to the high elevation of our modern era today.

Humans are unique

            Homo sapiens are the only species on earth capable of producing history…of creating a record of the events of advancing civilization.

            The one area where we can track the accuracy of the linkage procedure used in common descent…is in the intellectual progress of Homo sapiens.

            This cannot be tracked in the same way looking at the lifestyle habits of ancient fossils of other creatures, because woolly mammoths and saber-toothed tigers are incapable of writing histories documenting their instinct-based, lifestyle progress.

            We can easily tell whether or not the intellectual progress of human development keeps pace with the hypothesized linkages that could demonstrate advancing anatomical progress over vast periods of time.  

            Near-mature intelligent human beings getting close to full-development…would be the only living species capable of leaving behind a written history that would enable a parallel tracking of both advancing anatomy and intelligence…the critical comparative tracking of architectural body-plans to lifestyle habits.

            Creating common descent linkages between Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens on anatomical grounds, using the straight-line Darwinian formula of nature makes no sudden leaps, cannot then exclude and ignore the evidence of the exponential, upward spiking graph-line track of human intellectual progress.

The on/off switches of gene regulatory networks

            Could the concept of developmental gene regulatory networks (DGRN’s) in pre-human living cells build and store-up the future capacity for modern human intellectual moral reasoning to explode on to the scene recently within a short time-span?

            This is one research program currently underway in molecular biochemistry trying to explain the near instantaneous immergence of complex living creatures during the Cambrian Explosion between 535-515 million years ago.  If answered, this could then apply to the apparent singularity of the near instant appearance of human intellectual and moral reasoning.  

            Researching the matter-and-energy mechanics of the sudden immergence of complex life-forms at the Cambrian Explosion still does not address the fundamental question of where did the genetic information come from in the first place…no matter how it was then translated into the reality of architectural body-plans.

            Whether or not the supporting genetic information is built-up gradually over long periods of time, and then released into physical actuality through the on/off mechanism of a controlling regulatory switch, is a brilliant scientific inquiry.

            But the answer to this question still does not address the fundamental questions of where would this information come from that guides DGRN’s, and how could it be so precisely timed and coordinated with specific geological eras of complimentary biodiversity and supportive ecosystems?

            Answer this question definitively through DGRN matter-and-energy mechanisms or through some other system of epigenetic information (a controlling informational system outside of DNA)…and we only push the fundamental question of the creative origin of genetic information…back one step. 

            We have then only answered more deeply the physics and chemistry of how ink bonds to paper, but have gone nowhere near solving the mystery of the intelligent agency that arranges the ink to convey the specified information of the headlines in the New York Times newspaper.

            The fact-based evidence of modern science does not support the traditional Darwinian process of small-step incremental gradualism as the causal explanation for human development, which must exhibit intellectual milestone improvements as well as anatomical advancements in an upward sloping linear progression.

Science and God: Did God Leave Fingerprints?

            The ideological divide between scientific materialists and Christian theists starts with the fact that the biblical God hasnot made His personal location amenable to scientific discovery…through a solely materialistic pursuit within the realm of matter and energy.

            For Christians this ideological divide is by the deliberate intention of God…God being a Spirit Mind.

            The God of the Bible has not allowed His personhood to be reduced down to the level of being merely one of the natural laws of physics, chemistry, or mathematics.  He is not a part of the orderliness and intelligibility of the natural world that we can only make an impersonal connection with at best, intellectually with our minds but not personally with our hearts.

            The God of the Bible is the brilliantly insightful composer of the biblical narrative stories of faith from Abraham through Paul.  He is not the deistic god who created the universe then removed Himself to a safely detached and non-participative distance from His creation.

            We can clearly see the awe, wonder, and beauty displayed in the natural world, which for Christian theists must be an accurate reflection of God’s character, intelligence, and personality.  And we have the innate capacity to admire the organized complexity in nature phenomenally apparent to the ancient Greek philosophers…and even more so today through the discoveries of modern science in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. 

            But all of these remarkable physical things cannot really tell us who God is as a person, a fact of reality which God understands better than we do.   

            Having instead bypassed a physical revelation of His personhood (other than the incarnation and life of Jesus Christ the Son of God for about 33 years in the first third of the first-century A.D. in Israel), God went straight to the heart-of-the-matter by inventing biblical-quality journeys of faith as the means by which we can enter into individualized mission-plans for our lives.

            This approach has the elevated goals of highly specified purpose, meaning, and direction…but most importantly along the way also getting to know God personally (Gen. 12:1-3, 37:5-11; Ex. 3:2-12; Jud. 6:11-16; 1Sam. 16:12-13; Jer. 1:4-6; Lk. 1:28-33; Mk. 1:16-17; Acts 9:3-16).

            In a few of my other Christian books I ask the question: Why didn’t God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit take full advantage of the most opportune time to have the risen Jesus walk down the center of Main Street in Jerusalem and straight into the Temple sanctuary, on Tuesday or Wednesday of the first week following His resurrection?

            In clear view of everyone, God could have made the definitively empirical statement that Jesus is the Messiah and divine Son of God, and to worship only Him as settled fact and not of faith.

            But upon reflection, the Creator God of the entire universe has the capacity to make His true identity empirically known at any time during human history…in any number of clearly obvious and indisputable ways, repeatable on a daily basis if He wanted to.

            Also in some of my other Christians books, I introduce the related concept in the Bible of the delicate balance between belief and unbelief.  This is a very subtle, fine-tuned, and long-standing reality that could only come from the mind of God, having no other plausible source of origin coming out of worldly conventional normalcy and thinking.

            There is no conceivable motivation for imaginative inspiration for the delicate balance between belief and unbelief to be invented within the storylines of human fictional mythology.    

            Yet the faith element of biblical Judaism and Christianity that produces the unique religious context for the development of a personal relationship with God, creates this dynamic of the delicate balance between belief and unbelief, that has been set-up and fine-tuned to exist for over four thousand years. 

            This is a spiritual engineering feat that shouts-out for the most fundamental brilliance of the real living God who can differentiate between the high value of a personal relationship, contrasted with the lower counterfeit of a mere physically factual revelation.  This feat of spiritual engineering leaves in-place our humanistic ability to push God away to the safe distance of being a detached, deistic god…of having no potential “interference” or impact upon the way we want to run our lives.     

            The humanism of worldly conventional normalcy and thinking would like to confine God to the category of an impersonal being that we acknowledge as existing through the hubris of our scientific investigation of matter and energy…and leave it there. 

            Relegated to being mere head-knowledge about a harmless God we can safely set-aside, this eliminates the risk of His performing the proper role and function as God, that He might insist upon radically altering the terms of our self-sovereign control over the course and direction of our lives.          

            But it would be the pinnacle of brilliant insight if the Creator God of the living and non-living natural world, in order to create the precise context within which to correctly introduce Himself to mankind, did this by initiating personal relationships. 

            In the Spirit…God introduces Himself to people through the biblical invention of God-composed journey of faith life-scripts (Gen. 12:1-3) made possible through redemptive salvation by grace through faith and not by “the works of the law” (Rom. 4:3, 16; Acts 15:11).

            The God of the Bible is currently not physically present in a corporal body.  He is not in a material form at a specific location on earth or in the universe.  Hedoes not live at an address and does not have a zip code.  God is therefore not findable by scientific materialists searching through the microscopic world of atoms, protons, and electrons all the way up to viewing through a telescope the vast expanse of the galactic cosmos.

            This “negative” finding crosses over the ideological divide into fodder for atheistic unbelief…as the prime evidence that God is non-existent.

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”                                                     (Heb. 11:1)

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”                      (Heb. 11:6)           

            Some professional scientists assert through their atheistic worldview that the universe is without ultimate purpose or meaning.  The modern irony here is that their chosen career of science itself is saturated with purpose.

            The mission-plan proposed by the philosopher Francis Bacon…a contemporary of Shakespeare…to simplify the scientific method by stripping away purpose from the study of matter and energy alone, is itself a mission-statement having a clearly delineated purpose.

            In this new Age of Information, modern science has identified complex, highly specified, and coherently integrated systems of information everywhere we look in the living and non-living natural world.  This has essentially overtaken and passed-up any reasonably believable explanation for the origin of these complex systems of information coming from a purely materialistic mechanism.

            There is no such thing as “straight science” that is entirely divorced from the abstract and intangible nature of information.

            The ground rules of scientific investigation are material, but they include the abstraction of immaterial information in order to produce meaning, in order to put meat on the bare bones of scientific discoveries and knowledge.

            I am arguing here for the recognition of the immaterial transcendence of the mind…of abstract information…in the exercise of the analysis and judgment integral within scientific research.

            The thing to comprehend here within the delicate balance between belief and unbelief is that when applied to the human scientific enterprise, the initial set-up of a research program, the collection of data, and the analysis and conclusions after the research is completed…is laced and infused with the abstract thinking of information.  This is expressed through the communication mediums of words, drawings, photographs, and numerical equations. 

            These research programs are not confined exclusively to the discovery of raw data alone, but necessarily involve the scientifically undefinable essences of good faith, integrity, honesty, and trust guiding the accuracy of the research and the reporting of its findings. 

            This suite of additional moral and philosophical elements creates a much broader overall product than just the raw evidentiary facts alone.

            From the perspective of the delicate balance between belief and unbelief, science is rife with faith and trust integral and inseparable from its initial logic in crafting a research program, making observations, and then inferring conclusions and theories from the data.

            In this sense, information and evidence are inseparable in the scientific method.   

            Scientific materialists…atheists…want “evidence” for God…but information is evidence.

            Scientific materialists want to insist on a faith-stopper by asserting that matter and energy are the only real means by which we can generate truth.

            Phillip E. Johnson makes the salient point in his public talks[1] that once the paradigm of materialism is established as the working model for scientific investigation, then critics of macroevolution are admonished to stay within the confines of the study of matter and energy only, to “pony up” with fact-based evidence that pushes only the materialistic database of information forward.

            This insistence upon naturalistic materialism only…disallows taking stock of the current evidence and then drawing contrary conclusions as to the truth or falsity of the evidence for macroevolution…on the merits of the evidence. 

            The method of falsification of hypotheses is historically scientific for everything other than the atheistic materialism of macroevolution.

            Insisting upon naturalistic materialism as the working model for scientific investigation is pure philosophical subterfuge.

            As has been said in several places in this book, Intelligent Design is a skeletal explanatory framework on equal standing with scientific materialism…both viewpoints crafting explanatory storylines connecting the exact same data points of information.

            Atheists Insist that professional scientists who are Christians “pony up” with more arguments in favor of naturalistic materialism in order to do acceptable science.  This exhibits a prejudicial bias that is in the worst sense unscientific.   

            For scientific materialists…it is: “Play by our rules of materialism or don’t play at all.  If you theists want to question macroevolution…do it solely through the means of matter and energy, and leave aside logic, argumentation, and reasoning.   Take our word on the authority of scientism that God does not exist until we tell you otherwise.”

            Scientific materialists say: “In science, we study matter and energy…and that’s the end of it.”

            But this is not true. 

            Science is infused with abstract and conceptually intangible information, of raw factual data and beginning theoretical assumptions and philosophically derived conclusions, all of which are open to evaluation and analysis by any number of perspectives and viewpoints.

            The vast amount of complex, specified, and coherently integrated systems of information in the natural world…as a whole taken as evidence…can reach the conclusion that these systems of information point to the need for intelligent agency to explain their origin. 

            But this is an inference from the data that is clearly a non-materialistic conclusion.

“I AM THAT I AM” (Ex. 3:14; Isa. 43:11-15; Jn.8:58)

            One brilliant argument coming from Christian apologists in this area of discovering the identity of God as being a separate issue from the evidence for His existence is that the four faces of American Presidents accurately and unmistakably depicted on Mount Rushmore are easily and immediately attributed to a sculptor rather than the erosion of wind and rain.[2]

            Yet the question of who the sculptor is or was does not have any bearing upon the evidentiary impression of intelligent design in the creation of Mount Rushmore. 

From the book Pondering Our Creation: Christian Essays on Science and Faith.


[1] Grand Metaphysical Story of Science–Phillip E. Johnson, April 21, 2012 by Izzy Invasion, on You Tube.

[2] 20161030 The Oldest Yahweh Inscription 2 Kings Joel Kramer, published on Oct. 30, 2016, by Lighthouse Church-Twin Falls on You Tube…at Joel Kramer Archaeologist.

Science and God: Can Science Falsify Biblical Miracles?

            In this new Age of Information, the concept of the required perfection of information systems is now broadly understood thanks to the immergence and widespread use of the personal computer. 

            The common awareness that computer software programs from spreadsheets to games must be thoroughly debugged in order to function error-free before they are put-out into the marketplace, has entered into popular knowledge.  This was not the case a few decades ago prior to the invention of the writing of computer software language code. 

            In this new Age of Information, everything has changed.  Science has changed, and our cultural outlook has changed.

            Arguments that were reasonably compelling 50, 100, or 200 years ago now no longer hold water, when viewed from the perspective of a universe that is information-based requiring intelligent agency.  This is contrasted with the opposite perspective of a universe that is solely based upon mechanism…a wholly materialistic universe without intelligent agency.

            There are three or four major concepts that come to mind, that have been simplified and clarified as a result of the prioritizing of information above matter-and-energy.

            The first such centuries-old concept is that biblical miracles can and will be falsified through science. 

            This was a compelling argument historically made through the scientific investigation and description of matter-and-energy mechanisms in the natural world that produce empirical, fact-based evidence.

            But when understood in terms of information, the God of the Bible performing a miracle is no more incredulous than the modern architect or a homebuilder changing the location of a large walk-in closet to become a bathroom…and vice-versa, part-way into the construction at the preliminary rough-framing phase, to improve the floor-plan layout at the request of the homebuyer.

            This is an example of conceptual, creative information being translated into physical matter and energy, after the construction of the new house is already in progress.

            The God of the Bible performing a miracle, is no more incredulous than this same buyer of a custom-built new home requesting the architect or the builder to reframe a particular door opening to be wider, or to install a larger window at a particular bedroom, or to move a non-bearing wall 12-inches this way or that way…being common events that occur somewhere in the world every day in new housing construction.

            An information-based universe allows flexibility for the input of revisions, in the form of purposeful miracles recorded in the Bible, as long as the Architect/Builder possesses the means to bring this information into physical reality without violating structural engineering or the “local building codes.”

            Jesus can change water into wine at the marriage at Cana because Jesus invented water (Jn. 1:3, 2:1-11).

            This does not mean that the architect or the builder is required to explain to the new homebuyer precisely how they intend to accomplish these requested changes…in the detailed terms of the “means-and-methods” of building construction.

            The complex, highly specified, and coherently integrated systems of information we see everywhere in the natural world, required not only an Intelligent Designer God who had perfectly exhaustive and comprehensive access to information, but a God who invented from scratch all of this information in the form of matter, energy, time, and the laws of physics and chemistry.

            This is analogous to the same way that an architect starts with a blank sheet of paper or a blank computer screen, inventing the design information for a new building by using illustrated lines, spaces, and text/word notes.

            Because we now popularly have a sense of the complexity component involved in debugging thousands of lines of computer software language code for a business application or a game…of getting these lines of code right so that their applications are operatively functional…we now also have a popular sense of the organized complexity of the architectural and engineering design of a physical new building.

            This then easily translates into the concept of the requirement of intelligent agency in formulating the information in the design and construction of this physical, material universe that we study through scientific investigation.

            The complex, specified, and coherently integrated mechanisms in the natural world are somewhat analogous and similar in character to the standardized technology of the physical construction “means and methods” building trades techniques utilized in assembling a new house.

            Like the complexity of the writing of computer software language code, and the complexity of the architectural and engineering design of a new building, this now gives us a commonplace and popular sense of the inescapable role of agency in relation to the invention and organization of complex information systems.

            The old-fashioned idea that the study of mechanism through science would automatically preclude the existence and function of agency, because agency is information-based, no longer holds water, does not stack-up.

            The best refutation of the famous David Hume argument that biblical miracles violate natural laws, that I have heard, is given by John Lennox as an illustration in an interview entitled “Can science explain everything?” on You Tube[1]…which I will paraphrase and Americanize below:

            If while vacationing in California, I place in the top drawer of the dresser cabinet in my hotel room $100, and the next day I place another $100 in this same drawer, and the third day after sight-seeing I come back and open this dresser drawer and find that $150 is missing…then have the laws of nature been broken…or the laws of California?

            We would immediately conclude that the laws of California had been broken…telling us that the laws of nature and the laws of the state of California are different.

            But how are they different? 

            My hotel room is not a closed-system.  Even though I lock the door when I leave…an outside agent can gain entrance into this room (pick the lock, climb through a window, have a master key, etc.), open the top drawer of the dresser, reach-in and take out $150.

            The other explanation for the disappearance of the $150 would be a miracle that violates the laws of nature, according to the argument put forward by Hume.

            But nothing in the laws of nature tell us scientifically that these laws are a closed-system, that an outside agent cannot come into the hotel room, reach into the dresser drawer, and alter the dollar amount, in this illustration.

            The requirement that the laws of nature are somehow closed systems is an added philosophical assumption that is not evidenced within these laws themselves.

            In other words, the laws of nature tell us in this illustration that according to what normally occurs money does not by itself disappear into thin-air in a puff of smoke.  But these laws of nature do not and cannot tell us that an outside agent is absolutely barred from entering the room and taking money from the drawer. 

            The laws of nature that describe what normally occurs, and an agent who can act independently from what normally occurs are two different things, a reality that undermines Hume’s objection to biblical miracles.

            David Hume has to first assume the non-existence of God as the capable, independent, outside agent who can enter into the hotel room of nature and “take the money”…to make his case that “thefts” in nature called biblical miracles are unscientific and therefore also non-existent. 

            This is a case that devolves into a circular argument… that because God cannot violate the closed-system of the laws of nature then the laws of nature are a closed-system, thereby concluding that biblical miracles are unscientific and therefore do not exist.

            The correct starting assumption is that my hotel room is not an absolute closed-system…and that it is possible for an outside agent (thief) to gain entrance and alter the dollar amount in the dresser drawer.

            The parallel analogy of God being absolutely barred from entering into the closed-system of the natural world as an outside agent to perform a miracle is erroneously based upon the circular argument that science tells us that the natural world is a closed-system. 

Simple-to-complex is a mindset over-used to support gradualism and naturalistic materialism

            To suggest that the Big Bang creation of the universe was a simple event is as unscientific as is imaginable.

            The creative events involved in the beginning of this universe are open to scientific investigation, revealing organized complexity occurring in a split-second, of systems of information far in excess of the writing of any computer software language code, or the architectural and engineering design of the most complex building.

            The identity of the Intelligent Designer God of the universe is a separate issue.  The main point here is that the complex, highly specified, and coherently integrated systems of information in the natural world easily identify the presence of agency.

            Agency can no longer be pushed aside by the focused study of mechanism in the name of science, no more than the role of the architect as designer can be set aside and displaced by the mechanism of the actual building construction in progress.  The role of the computer software engineer as designer cannot be set aside and displaced from the functional application of the mechanism of the software program in use.

            The existence of agency follows from the organized complexity observed.

            Looking back in time, what have we learned through the scientific investigation of matter and energy…of concrete, physical mechanisms…in the twentieth century?

            At the beginning of the twentieth century…in 1916…we learned through the General Theory of Relativity that the speed of light was a fixed quantity, and that time was therefore relative to motion in relation to a fixed point of reference.

            In 1929, the scientific investigation of matter-and-energy mechanisms in the cosmos led to the discovery that the universe was expanding rapidly outward. 

            This was evidenced in the spectral red-shift of the light coming towards us from distant galaxies in the universe, viewed through the massive-sized telescope atop Mt. Wilson in Pasadena, California.  This generated the revolutionary idea of a beginning point in time of our universe…popularly coined the Big Bang.

            In 1953 and 1957, the discovery first of the double-helix structure of the molecule DNA in living organisms, and then the inconceivably vast and organized complexity of its specified information content, has to be one of the top three to five revelations in all of human history…this particular revelation coming from the investigation of matter-and-energy mechanisms through the scientific method.

            In 1973, the submission of a technical paper at a scientific conference by the British cosmologist Brandon Carter, on the apparent fine-tuning of the mathematical constants in several key areas of the physics of the universe to support carbon-based life like ourselves, has grown into the field of study known as the Anthropic Principle.[2]

            But the entirely unexpected, counterintuitive conclusion that the scientific investigation of matter-and-energy mechanisms in the natural world has produced, is that the understanding of mechanisms does not lead to atheism.

            Modern science does not rationally displace old-fashioned theism with a modern version of enlightened atheism…but instead unmistakably points towards the existence of a brilliantly ingenious God. 

            After centuries of the most intense investigation of the phenomena of the natural world it turns out that the fundamental conflict is not between God and science…but instead is between agency and mechanism.

            This is at bottom an illogically nonsensical dichotomy, because the two realities of agency and mechanism fit smoothly together rather than being separate and apart.

            Whatever and whoever we decide is the cause of the phenomena of the natural world, it should now be abundantly clear in our modern understanding of information that complex mechanism cannot create complex mechanism…cannot create itself.  The chemistry and physics of how ink bonds to paper is not the explanation for how this ink gets arranged into the letters of the English language to convey the specified information in the headlines of the New York Times newspaper.

            This is a good place to discuss the term “creation science.”

            There is no such thing as creation science.

            This has to be one of the worst abuses of the concept of creating a straw-man that is easy to knock down.

            Intelligent design is a competing skeletal-explanatory-framework hypothesis utilizing the exact same set of empirical facts arranged by scientific materialists in their explanatory secular storylines.

            Philosophical materialism has no more right to the empirical facts than does fiat creationism.  These are two opposing constructions…spins…placed upon the same set of facts in a similar way to two opposing trial lawyers arguing for guilt or innocence in the same court of law.

            When scientific materialists insist that proponents of intelligent design come up with an alternate program of “creation science,” they are making an incredibly short-sighted appeal based upon the idea that scientists who are Christian theists would have access to special information outside of the “standards of the industry” database that comprises modern science.

            When understood as a skeletal explanatory framework competing on the same level playing field as naturalistic materialism, utilizing the same set of facts, the insistence that intelligent design should produce an alternate program of “creation science” again can be seen as being illogically nonsensical.

From the book Pondering Our Creation: Christian Essays on Science and Faith.


[1] Can science explain everything?  An interview with John Lennox.  RZIM, Jan. 31, 2019.

[2] Patrick Glynn, God The Evidence (New York, Three Rivers Press, 1997), 7-9.

Science and God: The Copernican Principle

            A major concept that can be clarified through the critical analysis of equally competing skeletal explanatory frameworks, is the notion popularized by Carl Sagan in his book The Pale Blue Dot, coined as the Copernican Principle or the Principle of Mediocrity.

            The Principle of Mediocrity says that because the earth is smaller in size compared to the vastness of the cosmos…that simply because our earth is inhabited by humans…it nonetheless merits no special significance in the universe.

            To paraphrase, Carl Sagan said that our earth was a small speck in the great cosmic dark, enjoying no special or preferred place in the universe, the essence of the concept of the Principle of Mediocrity.

            The arguments unwinding this concept begin by saying that the universe has to reach its current size in order to have a large enough “sample size” of rapidly receding galaxies to mathematically calculate in reverse-time going backwards, to precisely pinpoint an accurate average of 13.7 billion years ago for the Big Bang beginning of the universe.

            The relative ratio between a hypothetically smaller universe and a larger earth would not improve the accuracy of these calculations, and are therefore seen as being irrelevant in determining the importance of the earth in terms of relative size.

            The vast size of the universe appears not to be an impediment in calculating a beginning point in time for the universe…an extremely important scientific discovery.

            This line of reasoning would be easily recognized by a cosmologist or physicist.

            Having this starting point in time established, we can ask some questions relating to this issue of mediocrity.

            After the first billion years of the existence of the universe…at 12.7 billion years ago…would our Milky Way galaxy exist and how developed would it be?

            Could an early universe that had expanded to roughly 7% of its current size (using a linear expansion of 13.7/100 = 7%)…be able to produce our Milky Way galaxy to the point where our galaxy would then be able to produce and sustain our solar system and planet earth?

            The beginning of the universe at 13.7 billion years ago minus the beginning of the earth at 4.5 billion years ago…equals roughly 9.2 billion years of the expanding universe before our local solar system and earth are formed.  Another 4.5 billion years of expansion occurs before humans come along and begin to investigate the natural world through science.

            If time and space were compressed to make the earth “more significant” in terms of relative size compared to the universe at large…would we still have an earth located within the dark space between two spiral arms within the comparatively safe “goldilocks zone” a little more than half-way out between the center and the outside edge of the Milky Way galaxy?

            Would we have the clear atmosphere of the earth to explore the cosmos through telescopes and outer-space probing satellites?

            Would an initial expansion rate of the universe that was less than it was at the Hot Big Bang produce the enormous universe compared to the seemingly insignificant planet earth, having all of the right proportions, sizes, and fine-tuned constants in the laws of physics? 

            The precisely accurate mathematical calculations fit together like a Swiss watch…including a definitive starting point in time for the beginning of the universe.

            Carl Sagan saying that our earth is mediocre within the grand scheme of things, because the worldview of scientific materialism has no place for intelligent agency and thus no purpose or meaning in the universe, is a totally philosophical assumption.  It has no empirical support coming from the fact-based evidence of science itself.

            We could ask what alternative size and scope for the universe would provide an equal quantitative and qualitative sample size to produce the current accuracy of our determinations of the laws of physics and the characteristics of the elements of the Periodic Table.

            There is a host of reasons why the Principle of Mediocrity is no longer valid, beyond the scope of this book (see the book Why the Universe Is The Way It Is, by Hug Ross, 2008).

            The Principle of Mediocrity reveals the peril that occurs when scientists leave their specialty and from the elevated platform of scientific authority make assertions about worldviews that are entirely philosophical…which I am now doing in the statement in bold and italics directly below this paragraph.

Modern science today points towards intelligent agency, and not towards the insignificance of mediocrity

            Modern scientific investigation was always going to arrive at a point in time when it reached the inescapable recognition of the need for a Designing Intelligent Agent.

            The organized complexity of the information content now reveals scientifically an architectural and engineering artisan of incomparable precision at the highest standards of craftsmanship, having complete mastery of the database of information to create everything material and non-material in existence in the universe… because He Himself created all of this information.

            Because the natural world was always this complex…starting at the Big Bang creation of the universe 13.7-billion years ago and the formation of our planet earth 4.5-billion years ago…this paradigm-changing epiphany was waiting all this time for human scientific discovery to catch up. 

            The functional coherence of organized complexity now points to intelligent design as the only remaining plausible option. 

            This returns full-circle from the theistic conceptual beginnings of the Scientific Revolution…of a rational Creator God of the Bible producing a natural world that is orderly, intelligible, and accessible to human scientific investigation…to discover the truth as to how all of this came into being.

            Not everyone will become PhD scientists, able to navigate through the technical facts spanning several disciplines of research, now supporting design and thus agency in nature.  

            Not everyone has a college degree in philosophy…able to parse the subtle arguments for and against theism and atheism.

            Winning a consensus that favors design in today’s scientific and philosophical communities, thereby rejecting the atheistic version of materialism, would be without question a monumental event in human history.

            But the discovery by modern science of the inescapable presence of design in the natural world, based upon a fuller understanding and appreciation of information in this new Age of Information, and thus the existence of an intelligent designer God…expands a million-fold when filtered through the biblical narrative stories of faith

            Making a compelling argument to the general populace that a faith-journey following the perfectly precise and accurate God of the Bible as the one true worldview narrative excluding all others (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 11:25, 14:6)…is a bottom-line conclusion immerging from both science and Christian living today.

            The final end-point purpose of the scientific research epiphany in nature of the existence of a designing agent, having the indescribable foresight to capably marshal all of the varied components needed to fashion this functional universe, must rightfully make the logical connection to validate this same high competence of the God of the Bible in composing journeys of faith life-scripts.

            The mislabeled controversy between God and science then boils-down to the correctly identified contest between self-sovereignty versus God-sovereignty…which can only be fought-out within the confines of faith, trust, and personal relationships.

From the book Pondering Our Creation: Christian Essays on Science and Faith.

%d bloggers like this: