Unmasking the Hijackers of Science

Unmasking the Hijackers of Science

Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2010Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2010

OutlineOutline

I. The Origin of Science in Creation I. The Origin of Science in Creation

Founders of Modern ScienceFounders of Modern Science

Bacon

Kepler Galileo

Newton

A. The Founders of Modern Science Believed in a Creator

A. The Founders of Modern Science Believed in a Creator

Johannes Kepler (1571‑1630) Celestial Mechanics, Physical Astronomy

• Blaise Pascal (1623‑1662) Hydrostatics

• Robert Boyle (1627‑1691) Chemistry, Gas Dynamics

• Nicolaus Steno (1638‑1687) Stratigraphy

• Isaac Newton (1642‑1727) Calculus, Dynamics

• Michael Faraday (1791‑1867) Magnetic Theory

Charles Babbage (1792‑1871) Computer Science

Johannes Kepler (1571‑1630) Celestial Mechanics, Physical Astronomy

• Blaise Pascal (1623‑1662) Hydrostatics

• Robert Boyle (1627‑1691) Chemistry, Gas Dynamics

• Nicolaus Steno (1638‑1687) Stratigraphy

• Isaac Newton (1642‑1727) Calculus, Dynamics

• Michael Faraday (1791‑1867) Magnetic Theory

Charles Babbage (1792‑1871) Computer Science

Louis Agassiz (1807‑1873) Glacial Geology, Ichthyology

James Simpson (1811‑1870) Gynecology Gregor Mendel (1822‑1884) Genetics Louis Pasteur (1822‑1895) Bacteriology Lord Kelvin (1824‑1907) Energetics,

Thermodynamics

Joseph Lister (1827‑1912) Antiseptic Surgery James Maxwell (1831‑1879) Electrodynamics

Statistical Thermodynamics William Ramsay (1852‑1916) Isotopic Chemistry

Louis Agassiz (1807‑1873) Glacial Geology, Ichthyology

James Simpson (1811‑1870) Gynecology Gregor Mendel (1822‑1884) Genetics Louis Pasteur (1822‑1895) Bacteriology Lord Kelvin (1824‑1907) Energetics,

Thermodynamics

Joseph Lister (1827‑1912) Antiseptic Surgery James Maxwell (1831‑1879) Electrodynamics

Statistical Thermodynamics William Ramsay (1852‑1916) Isotopic Chemistry

B. Belief in Creation was the Basis of Modern Science

1. Francis Bacon [1620]

B. Belief in Creation was the Basis of Modern Science

1. Francis Bacon [1620] “The beginning is from God”

(Novum Organum 1.93, 91). “God on the first day of

creation created light…” (1.70, 68).

Bacon spoke of “the Creator’s own stamp upon creation…” (1.124, 114).

"Only let the human race recover that right over nature which belongs to it by divine bequest [in Gen. 1:28]…” (1:129, 119).

“The beginning is from God” (Novum Organum 1.93, 91).

“God on the first day of creation created light…” (1.70, 68).

Bacon spoke of “the Creator’s own stamp upon creation…” (1.124, 114).

"Only let the human race recover that right over nature which belongs to it by divine bequest [in Gen. 1:28]…” (1:129, 119).

"The faith in the possibility

of science… is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology" (Science in the

Modern World, 13).

"The faith in the possibility of science… is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology" (Science in the

Modern World, 13).

2. Alfred N. Whitehead: Science Was Based in Christian Theism

2. Alfred N. Whitehead: Science Was Based in Christian Theism

"What is the source of the un-Greek elements which...constitute the modernity of modern philosophy? And...what is the source of those un-Greek elements in the modern theory of nature...? The answer to the first question is: The Christian revelation, and the answer to the second: The Christian doctrine of creation" (Mind 1934, 448).

"What is the source of the un-Greek elements which...constitute the modernity of modern philosophy? And...what is the source of those un-Greek elements in the modern theory of nature...? The answer to the first question is: The Christian revelation, and the answer to the second: The Christian doctrine of creation" (Mind 1934, 448).

3. M. B. Foster: Science Based in Creation3. M. B. Foster: Science Based in Creation

4. Professor Langdon Gilkey:4. Professor Langdon Gilkey: ““The religious idea of a The religious idea of a

transcendent Creator transcendent Creator actually actually made possible made possible rather than hindered rather than hindered the progress of the the progress of the

scientific understanding scientific understanding of of the the natural order.” natural order.”

Modern scienceModern science “was provided for Western culture “was provided for Western culture byby the idea of creation” the idea of creation” ( (Maker of Heaven and Maker of Heaven and EarthEarth, 110, 120)., 110, 120).

““The religious idea of a The religious idea of a transcendent Creator transcendent Creator actually actually made possible made possible rather than hindered rather than hindered the progress of the the progress of the

scientific understanding scientific understanding of of the the natural order.” natural order.”

Modern scienceModern science “was provided for Western culture “was provided for Western culture byby the idea of creation” the idea of creation” ( (Maker of Heaven and Maker of Heaven and EarthEarth, 110, 120)., 110, 120).

C. Principles Used by Early ScientistsC. Principles Used by Early Scientists 1. The Principle of Causality

C. Principles Used by Early ScientistsC. Principles Used by Early Scientists 1. The Principle of Causality

Bacon: He speaks of “knowledge by causes" (Novum Organum 2.2, 121).

Hume: "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause" (Hume, Letters, 1:187).

Laplace: He speaks of “the evident principle that a thing cannot occur without a cause which produces it" (Laplace, Probabilities, 4).

2. The Principle of Regularity2. The Principle of Regularity Galileo (1546-1642):Galileo (1546-1642): God created regular and discoverable laws by God created regular and discoverable laws by

which the world operates. So, which the world operates. So, “You simply cannot change the “You simply cannot change the experimental conclusions about natural phenomena and the experimental conclusions about natural phenomena and the heavens,heavens, as you can alter the terms of a contract, raise the interest as you can alter the terms of a contract, raise the interest rate or change a business deal” (“Letter to Duchess,” 17). rate or change a business deal” (“Letter to Duchess,” 17).

In fact, “even all of the verses of Scripture are not obligated to In fact, “even all of the verses of Scripture are not obligated to function as rigorously as every law of nature.function as rigorously as every law of nature. And And it is no less it is no less excellent to discover the works of God in nature excellent to discover the works of God in nature than in the than in the sayings of Holy Scripture” (“Letter to Duchess,” 8).sayings of Holy Scripture” (“Letter to Duchess,” 8).

Nature has “Nature has “fixed lawsfixed laws” (Bacon, NO, 2.2, 122), “” (Bacon, NO, 2.2, 122), “uniform”uniform” (Hume, (Hume, EnquiryEnquiry, X), , X), “steady”“steady” (Hutton, (Hutton, Theory of the Earth,Theory of the Earth,19), 19), “constant,”“constant,” “undeviating”“undeviating” (Lyell, (Lyell, Principles of GeologyPrinciples of Geology, 143, 89), , 143, 89), and even and even “immutable”“immutable” (Laplace, (Laplace, ProbabilitiesProbabilities, 177)., 177).

3. The Principle of Analogy (Uniformity)3. The Principle of Analogy (Uniformity)Laplace:Laplace: “ “AnalogyAnalogy is based upon the probability that is based upon the probability that similar things similar things

have causes of the same kindhave causes of the same kind and produce the same effects." And and produce the same effects." And "this "this probability increases as the similitude becomes more probability increases as the similitude becomes more perfect"perfect" (Laplace, (Laplace, Prob.Prob., 180). , 180).

Thus, Thus, scientific views about the pastscientific views about the past are derived with "the aid of are derived with "the aid of proofs drawn from theseproofs drawn from these analogies analogies [with the present]"[with the present]" (ibid., 100). (ibid., 100).

DarwinDarwin: If artificial selection can produce small changes in a short : If artificial selection can produce small changes in a short time, thentime, then likewise (analogously) likewise (analogously) natural selection can produce natural selection can produce large changes over a long period of time (Darwin, large changes over a long period of time (Darwin, OriginOrigin, Chaps. , Chaps. 1-2). 1-2).

3. The Principle of Analogy (Uniformity)3. The Principle of Analogy (Uniformity)

General Principle:General Principle: “The “The present is the key present is the key to the past.”to the past.”

Application to Science: Application to Science: “Causes “Causes

similar in kind and similar in kind and energy energy to those now acting, to those now acting, have have produced the former produced the former changes of the earth’s surface…” (see changes of the earth’s surface…” (see Principles of Geology, 1Principles of Geology, 1stst ed. 1830; 11 ed. 1830; 11thth ed. 1878, ed. 1878, p. 88). p. 88).

Charles Lyell (1797-1875)

4. Principle of Knowability: 4. Principle of Knowability: Nature and its Cause [God] can be Known

Bacon: “The Creator’s own stamp [is] upon creation…” (N.O., 1.124, 114). Nature is “the book of God’s works…a kind of second Scripture” (N.O., 282) in which we discover “the ideas of the divine” (ibid., 114).

Galileo: “The glory and greatness of God are marvelously discovered in all his works, and…things about God are to be read in the open book of the sky” (Galileo, Duchess, 20).

Kepler: “God who founded everything in the world…has endowed man with a mind which can comprehend these norms” (cited by Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, 84).

a. Education Based on Creationa. Education Based on Creation

McGuffy’s Reader (c. 1830-1930): “God is the Creator, and His creation enables us to understand Him. In proportion as we investigate the secrets of the natural world, we are able to understand the nature of God.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their

Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the

pursuit of Happiness.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their

Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the

pursuit of Happiness.”

1776: Declaration of Independence

b. Government Based on Creationb. Government Based on Creation

““Nature’s Laws” Nature’s Laws” from from ““Nature’s God”Nature’s God”

5. There are Two Kinds of Causes Primary Cause—deals with origin of World, named a “Creator” or “Mind”

(Hutton, TE, 551), “supreme intelligence” (ibid., 223), or “Author of Nature” (Lyell, PG, 4).

Bacon speaks of “The efficient and… remote causes… [i.e., primary cause]” (Novum Organum [1620] No. 2.2,121) and even that “the beginning is from God” (1.93, 91).

Secondary Cause—deals with the operation of the world. Lyell wrote: “The present mountains and valleys of the earth are due to secondary

causes…” (PG, 58). These are causes that “belong to the present order of nature” (ibid., 76). He spoke also of “the undeviating uniformity of secondary causes” (ibid., 89). Hutton called them “steady causes” (TE, 167).

He added, “Hutton was the first who endeavored to draw a strong line of demarcation between his favourite science [geology] and cosmogony, for he declared that geology was in nowise concerned ‘with questions as to the origin of things’” (Lyell, PG, 4).

6. Two Kinds of Science for Early Scientists6. Two Kinds of Science for Early Scientists

Cosmogony CosmologyCosmogony Cosmology

Biogeny BiologyBiogeny Biology

Anthropogeny AnthropologyAnthropogeny Anthropology

Primary Cause Secondary CausesPrimary Cause Secondary Causes

Origin Science Operation ScienceOrigin Science Operation Science

7. The Universe Needs an Intelligent Cause

"May God make it come to pass that my delightful speculation have…the effect which I strove to obtain in the publication; namely, that the belief in the creation of the world be fortified through this external support, that thought of the creator be recognized in its nature, and that his inexhaustible wisdom shine forth daily more brightly” (cited by Gerard Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought [1973], 84).

"May God make it come to pass that my delightful speculation have…the effect which I strove to obtain in the publication; namely, that the belief in the creation of the world be fortified through this external support, that thought of the creator be recognized in its nature, and that his inexhaustible wisdom shine forth daily more brightly” (cited by Gerard Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought [1973], 84).

Universe Needs Intelligent CauseJohannes Kepler (1571‑1630):Universe Needs Intelligent CauseJohannes Kepler (1571‑1630):

“It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all

parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits.... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful

Being" (Newton, "Scholium," 369).

“It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all

parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits.... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful

Being" (Newton, "Scholium," 369).

The Universe Needs Intelligent CauseThe Universe Needs Intelligent Cause

(1642‑1727)

8. Life Needs an Intelligent Cause

Harvard’s Louis Agassiz (1807‑1873)

8. Life Needs an Intelligent Cause

Harvard’s Louis Agassiz (1807‑1873) “[Darwin] lost sight of the

most striking of the features, and the one which permeates the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind…and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature” (American Journal of Science, 1860).

“[Darwin] lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which permeates the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind…and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature” (American Journal of Science, 1860).

OutlineOutlineI. The Origin of Science in Creation

II. The Mistakes of Creation Views

I. The Origin of Science in Creation

II. The Mistakes of Creation Views

A. Focusing Science on Secondary Causes (to the neglect of the Primary Cause)

A. Focusing Science on Secondary Causes (to the neglect of the Primary Cause) Bacon said: “The final cause rather

corrupts than advances the sciences…. The efficient and …remote causes…are but slight and superficial, and contribute little, if anything, to true and active science" (Novum Organum, 2:2:122;).

He speaks of secondary causes or "fixed laws” (1:129:119) and of “Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, who can do and understand so much and so much only as he has observed in fact or in thought through the course of nature. Beyond this he neither knows anything or can do anything” (N.O. 1.1, 39).

B. Separation of Science & the BibleB. Separation of Science & the Bible

Bacon warns against any “…attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, the book of Job and other parts of Scripture …because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give faith that only which is faith’s” (N.O. 1.65, 62).

Galileo (1564‑1642): Affirmed Separation of Science from the Primary Cause of Things

He said that "It is the intention of the Holy Spirit [in Scripture] to teach us how one goes to heaven, and not how the heavens go" (Duchess..., 11).

Note: He believed that the supernatural is the source of the natural world, but the proper domain of science is “natural phenomena” (ibid., 17).

C. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727): “God-of-the-Gaps” Error

Newton invoked divine intervention to explain the irregular orbit of some planets. This opened him to the criticism that God was used to fill in the gaps in our ignorance of natural causes.

Many things (like meteors and eclipses) were once thought to have a divine cause. Hence, it came to be believed that acts of “creation” also resulted from natural causes yet to be discovered.

Other “God-of-the-Gap” ErrorsOther “God-of-the-Gap” Errors “ “Let us recall that formerly, and at no remote epoch, Let us recall that formerly, and at no remote epoch,

an unusual rain or an extreme drought, a comet an unusual rain or an extreme drought, a comet having in train a very long tail, having in train a very long tail, the eclipses, the aurora the eclipses, the aurora borealis, and in general all the unusual phenomena borealis, and in general all the unusual phenomena were regarded as so many signs of celestial wrath.were regarded as so many signs of celestial wrath. Heaven was invoked in order to avert their baneful Heaven was invoked in order to avert their baneful influence. influence. [However,] No one prayed to have the [However,] No one prayed to have the planets and the sun arrested in their courses;planets and the sun arrested in their courses; observation had soon made apparent the futility of observation had soon made apparent the futility of such prayers” (Laplace, such prayers” (Laplace, ProbabilitiesProbabilities, 5)., 5).

D. Literalistic Misinterpretations of the Bible Used to Reject Scientific ObservationsLactantius (c. 300): He ridiculed those who taught the earth

was a “sphere” (Galileo, Duchess, 5). Many believed the earth is square since the Bible speaks of “the four corners of the earth” (Rev. 7:1).

Hutton: Natural disasters are not divine judgments: “A volcano is not made on purpose to frighten superstitious people into fits of piety and devotion…” (Hutton, Theory of the Earth, 146).

Luther: He is quoted as rejecting Copernicus by saying, “I believe Scripture, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 54, “Table Talk,” June 4, 1539).

E. Cuvier: Animal Species are FixedE. Cuvier: Animal Species are Fixed

Founder: Comparative Anatomy Author: Lessons on Comparative

Anatomy (1800-1805), 5 vols.Fixity of Species: He believed that

"animals have certain fixed and natural characters." But modern science has challenged this (e.g., micro-evolution).

“Kinds” of Genesis: These were identified with “species.”

Founder: Comparative Anatomy Author: Lessons on Comparative

Anatomy (1800-1805), 5 vols.Fixity of Species: He believed that

"animals have certain fixed and natural characters." But modern science has challenged this (e.g., micro-evolution).

“Kinds” of Genesis: These were identified with “species.”

George Cuvier George Cuvier

1769-1832

Summary of Creationist’s ErrorsSummary of Creationist’s Errors1. Focusing science on secondary causes (which drew attention

from study of a primary cause).

2. Separating science from matters relating to God took science out of matters of origin.

3. Invoking God to explain unusual events in the universe which have since been explained by natural causes.

4. Using literalistic misinterpretations of the Bible to reject scientific observations.

5. Assuming the fixity of species which has since been challenged by micro-evolution.

OutlineOutlineI. The Origin Science in Creation

II. The Mistakes of Creation Views

III. The Rise of Anti-Creation Views

I. The Origin Science in Creation

II. The Mistakes of Creation Views

III. The Rise of Anti-Creation Views

A. Philosophical Roots of Naturalism

1. Benedict Spinoza (1632-77) "Nothing then, comes to pass in nature in contravention to her universal laws, for...she keeps a fixed and immutable order." Hence, "a miracle, whether in contravention to, or beyond, nature, is a mere absurdity" (Theologico-Politico Tractatus [1670], 1.83, 87, 92).

A. Philosophical Roots of Naturalism

1. Benedict Spinoza (1632-77) "Nothing then, comes to pass in nature in contravention to her universal laws, for...she keeps a fixed and immutable order." Hence, "a miracle, whether in contravention to, or beyond, nature, is a mere absurdity" (Theologico-Politico Tractatus [1670], 1.83, 87, 92).

2. Hume’s Argument for Only Natural Causes (1748)

2. Hume’s Argument for Only Natural Causes (1748)

1. Natural laws describe regular events. 2. A miracle is by definition a rare event.

3. The probability for the regular is always

greater than the probability for the rare (based on past experience).

4. Wise persons base their belief on the greater probability.

5. Hence, wise persons should not believe in miracles.

B. Manifestation of Naturalism in Science

1. Limiting Science to Secondary Causes ““Therefore, there is no Therefore, there is no

occasion occasion for having recourse to for having recourse to any any unnatural [cause]…or to unnatural [cause]…or to the the agency of any agency of any preternatural preternatural cause,cause, in in explaining that which explaining that which actually actually appears…. All these appears…. All these [geological phenomena] are the effects of [geological phenomena] are the effects of steady causessteady causes; ; each of these has its proper purpose in the system of the each of these has its proper purpose in the system of the earth.” Further, earth.” Further, “What reason have we to look out for “What reason have we to look out for any other causes, besides those which naturally arise any other causes, besides those which naturally arise from that constitution of things?”from that constitution of things?” ( (Theory of the Earth Theory of the Earth [1795][1795], 1:167; 2:468). , 1:167; 2:468).

1726-17971726-1797

2. All Causes are Natural Causes 2. All Causes are Natural Causes

Laplace concluded that "all the effects of nature are only mathematical results of a small number of immutable laws.” For "All events…are a result of it [nature] just as necessarily as the revolutions of the sun” (Probabilities [1814], 177).

Laplace concluded that "all the effects of nature are only mathematical results of a small number of immutable laws.” For "All events…are a result of it [nature] just as necessarily as the revolutions of the sun” (Probabilities [1814], 177).

(1749‑1827)(1749‑1827)

3. Immanuel Kant (d. 1812): The Cause of the physical universe is Natural Cause

3. Immanuel Kant (d. 1812): The Cause of the physical universe is Natural Cause

"I find matter bound to certain necessary laws. Out of its universal

dissolution and dissipation I see a beautiful and orderly whole quite naturally developing itself. This does not take place by accident, or of chance; but it is perceived that natural qualities necessarily bring it about" (Universal Natural History, l3-14).

"I find matter bound to certain necessary laws. Out of its universal

dissolution and dissipation I see a beautiful and orderly whole quite naturally developing itself. This does not take place by accident, or of chance; but it is perceived that natural qualities necessarily bring it about" (Universal Natural History, l3-14).

4. Kant: The Cause of Life is a Natural

Cause Too "We can here say with intelligent certainty and without audacity: 'Give me matter, and I will construct a world out of it!' i.e. give me matter and I will show you how a world shall arise out of it." And "...are we in a position to say: `Give me matter and I will show you how a caterpillar can be produced?'" (Kant, Universal Natural History, 17).

4. Kant: The Cause of Life is a Natural

Cause Too "We can here say with intelligent certainty and without audacity: 'Give me matter, and I will construct a world out of it!' i.e. give me matter and I will show you how a world shall arise out of it." And "...are we in a position to say: `Give me matter and I will show you how a caterpillar can be produced?'" (Kant, Universal Natural History, 17).

Kant's answer was a bold Yes! However, he believed that "...the origin of the whole present constitution of the universe, will become intelligible before the production of a single herb or a caterpillar by mechanical causes, will become distinctly and completely understood" (UNH, 17).

Kant's answer was a bold Yes! However, he believed that "...the origin of the whole present constitution of the universe, will become intelligible before the production of a single herb or a caterpillar by mechanical causes, will become distinctly and completely understood" (UNH, 17).

5. “God-of-the-Gaps” is Rejected 5. “God-of-the-Gaps” is Rejected Laplace on Newton: "I must here remark how Newton has erred on this point, from the method which he has otherwise so happily applied" (Exposition on the System of the World [1796] 2:4:331). Such an error arises when "the imagination, impatient to arrive at the causes, takes pleasure in creating hypotheses, and often it changes the facts in order to adapt them to its work” (Probabilities [1814], 183).

Laplace to Napoleon:Laplace to Napoleon:

When asked by Napoleon about the absence of God in his work, Laplace is said to have replied: “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.”

When asked by Napoleon about the absence of God in his work, Laplace is said to have replied: “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.”

(1749‑1827)(1749‑1827)

“God-of-the Gaps” Lyell cites Lyell cites Cirillo Generelli (1749) who, based on Cirillo Generelli (1749) who, based on

Lazzaro Moro (1740), declared “Nor is it reasonable to Lazzaro Moro (1740), declared “Nor is it reasonable to call the Deity capriciously upon the stage, and to make call the Deity capriciously upon the stage, and to make him work miracles for the sake of confirming our him work miracles for the sake of confirming our preconceived hypothesis…. preconceived hypothesis…. I hold in utter abomination, I hold in utter abomination, most learned Academicians! Those systems which are most learned Academicians! Those systems which are built with their foundations in the air, and built with their foundations in the air, and cannot be cannot be propped up without a miracle… propped up without a miracle… I undertake with the I undertake with the assistance of Moro, to explain to you how these marine assistance of Moro, to explain to you how these marine animals were transported into the mountains by animals were transported into the mountains by natural causes [like earthquakes]” (Lyell, PG, 53).natural causes [like earthquakes]” (Lyell, PG, 53).

6. No Need for an Intelligent Cause 6. No Need for an Intelligent Cause Laplace also rejected Newton's contention that

a blind force "could never make all the planets move thus….” He asked, "...could not this arrangement of the planets be itself an effect of the laws of motion; and could not the supreme intelligence which Newton makes to interfere, make it to depend on a more general phenomenon? such as, according to us, a nebulous matter distributed in various masses throughout the immensity of the heavens" (Systems, 2:4, 332).

Laplace also rejected Newton's contention that a blind force "could never make all the planets move thus….” He asked, "...could not this arrangement of the planets be itself an effect of the laws of motion; and could not the supreme intelligence which Newton makes to interfere, make it to depend on a more general phenomenon? such as, according to us, a nebulous matter distributed in various masses throughout the immensity of the heavens" (Systems, 2:4, 332).

7. The Principle of Continuity: Eliminates an Original Cause 7. The Principle of Continuity: Eliminates an Original Cause

Laplace believed "we ought then to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its anterior state and as the cause of the one which is to follow."

So, "present events are connected with preceding ones by a tie based upon the evident principle that a thing cannot occur without a cause which produces it" (Laplace, Probabilities, 4).

Laplace believed "we ought then to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its anterior state and as the cause of the one which is to follow."

So, "present events are connected with preceding ones by a tie based upon the evident principle that a thing cannot occur without a cause which produces it" (Laplace, Probabilities, 4).

8. The Principle of Regularity Rules out a Supernatural Cause

8. The Principle of Regularity Rules out a Supernatural Cause

“There are things so extraordinary that nothing can balance their improbability." Hence, “All events, even those which…do not seem to follow the great laws of nature, are a result of it just as necessarily as the revolutions of the sun…” (Pierre Laplace, Probabilities, 144, 3).

These natural laws were called “fixed” (Bacon), “uniform” (Hume, EHU, X), “steady” (Hutton, TE, 19), “constant,” “undeviating” (Lyell, PG, 143, 89), and even “immutable” (Laplace, P, 177).

“There are things so extraordinary that nothing can balance their improbability." Hence, “All events, even those which…do not seem to follow the great laws of nature, are a result of it just as necessarily as the revolutions of the sun…” (Pierre Laplace, Probabilities, 144, 3).

These natural laws were called “fixed” (Bacon), “uniform” (Hume, EHU, X), “steady” (Hutton, TE, 19), “constant,” “undeviating” (Lyell, PG, 143, 89), and even “immutable” (Laplace, P, 177).

Science Allows No Divine Foot in the DoorScience Allows No Divine Foot in the Door “We take the side of science in spite of the patent

absurdity of some of its constructs… because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a materialistic explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, …we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes…. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” (Richard Lewontin of Harvard in New York Review of Books, 1/9/96).

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs… because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a materialistic explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, …we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes…. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” (Richard Lewontin of Harvard in New York Review of Books, 1/9/96).

Methodological Naturalism “It is not by its conclusions but

by its methodological starting point that modern science excludes direct creation. Our methodology would not be honest if this fact were denied…such is the faith in the science of our time, and which we all share”

(C. F. von Weizsacker, The Relevance of Science; cited in Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, 60-61).

How Science Bit the Hand that Fed It The very natural laws, which were made

possible by the supernatural Creator who made them, were used to deny Him a role in the natural world He made!

How Science Bit the Hand that Fed It The very natural laws, which were made possible by the supernatural Creator who made them, were used to deny Him a role in the natural world He made!

Creation which made science possible was denied a place in the very science that it made possible.

How Science Bit the Hand that Fed It The very natural laws, which were made The very natural laws, which were made possible by the supernatural Creator who made possible by the supernatural Creator who made them, were used to deny Him a role in the natural them, were used to deny Him a role in the natural world He made! world He made!

Creation which made science possible was denied Creation which made science possible was denied a place in the very science that it made possible.a place in the very science that it made possible.

Operation science, which was made possible by Operation science, which was made possible by a supernatural cause, swallowed the supernatural a supernatural cause, swallowed the supernatural cause which made it possible.cause which made it possible.

Father of Modern Science Warned about Stress on Secondary Causes.

Father of Modern Science Warned about Stress on Secondary Causes.

Ironically, Francis Bacon warned “…that experience demonstrates how learned men have been arch-heretics, how learned times have been inclined to atheism, and how the contemplation of second causes doth derogate from our dependence upon God who is the first cause” (Advancement of Learning I.2).

Ironically, Francis Bacon warned “…that experience demonstrates how learned men have been arch-heretics, how learned times have been inclined to atheism, and how the contemplation of second causes doth derogate from our dependence upon God who is the first cause” (Advancement of Learning I.2).

OutlineOutlineI. The Origin of Science in Creation

II. The Mistakes of Creationists

III. The Rise of Anti-Creation Views

IV. The Mistakes of Anti-Creationists

I. The Origin of Science in Creation

II. The Mistakes of Creationists

III. The Rise of Anti-Creation Views

IV. The Mistakes of Anti-Creationists

IV. The Mistakes of Anti-Creationists: IV. The Mistakes of Anti-Creationists: A. The Nature of the Mistake: Assuming all

causes are natural causes 1. Methodological Naturalism

2. Nature-of-the-Gap Fallacy B. The Result of the Mistake: Courts Rulings

(McLean Court (Jan 5, 1982): “Such a concept is not science because it

depends upon supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law” (176).

“Such a reasoning process is not the product of natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative” (Geisler, Creator in the Courtroom, 177).

“Scopes II” Court Used It “Scopes II” Court Used It

Supreme Court was Based on It: (The Edwards Decision, 1987)

“The Act impermissibly endorses the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.” (1. (b)) “Concepts concerning God or a supreme being of some sort are manifestly religious.” (V, A) “The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created mankind.” (III, B)

Note: If this is true, then The Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional!

Phillip Johnson Pinpointed ItPhillip Johnson Pinpointed It

“It is easy to see why scientific naturalism is an attractive philosophy for scientists. It gives science a virtual monopoly on the production of knowledge, and it assures scientists that no important questions are in principle beyond scientific investigation” (p. 121).

“It is easy to see why scientific naturalism is an attractive philosophy for scientists. It gives science a virtual monopoly on the production of knowledge, and it assures scientists that no important questions are in principle beyond scientific investigation” (p. 121).

C. The Basis of the Mistake: Hume (1748)

C. The Basis of the Mistake: Hume (1748)

1. Natural laws describe regular events. 2. A miracle is by definition a rare event.

3. The probability for the regular is always

greater than the probability for the rare (based on past experience).

4. Wise persons base their belief on the greater probability.

5. Hence, wise persons should not believe in miracles.

Hume’s Error: He confuses probability (based on past events) and evidence (for an observed event).

Illustration: The improbability of a perfect hand of bridge being dealt (based on past experience) should not outweigh the evidence of four honest reliable witnesses when a perfect hand is dealt. The same is true of a hole-in-one in golf.

Even Naturalists Accept Improbable (Rare) Events:

1. Big Bang origin of the universe is rare.

2. Spontaneous generation of first life is rare.

3. Macroevolution (from microbe to man) is rare.

D. Manifestations of the Mistake: 1. Failing to Distinguish Two kinds of Causes

Natural Intelligent

D. Manifestations of the Mistake: 1. Failing to Distinguish Two kinds of Causes

Natural Intelligent

This is so no matter how long ago it was.This is so no matter how long ago it was.

NaturalNatural IntelligentIntelligent

TWO TYPES OF CAUSESTWO TYPES OF CAUSES

Sand Dune Sand Castle

Repeated Experience Showsby the “Principle of Regularity”Repeated Experience Showsby the “Principle of Regularity”

Natural Cause Intelligent Cause Water Falls Power Plant Crystals Chandelier Sand Dunes Sand Castle Round Stone Arrowhead

Principle of Uniformity demands that similar past events also have a similar intelligent cause to present ones.

2. Overlooking the difference between Two Kinds of Science

2. Overlooking the difference between Two Kinds of Science

Origin Science Operation Science (Forensic Science) (Empirical Science)

About origin of things About operation of things Past singularities Present regularities Based on: Based on:

causality observation analogy repetition

Intelligent causes possible Only natural causes

Note: Neither creation nor macro-evolution is an empirical science. Both are forensic in type.

Illustration: a Motor Illustration: a MotorIts Origin Its OperationHow it Originates How it Operates

(by an intelligent cause) (by natural laws) Conductor

Current (spark)

Power source (gas)

Law of gravity

Laws of friction

Laws of motion

Laws of tension Laws of combustion

(which laws never produce a motor)

Its Origin Its OperationHow it Originates How it Operates

(by an intelligent cause) (by natural laws) Conductor

Current (spark)

Power source (gas)

Law of gravity

Laws of friction

Laws of motion

Laws of tension Laws of combustion

(which laws never produce a motor)

3. Confusing Uniformity and Uniformitarianism

1. Principle of uniformity (analogy) only demands that like effects have like causes, not that all effects have natural causes.

2. In fact, uniformity of causal connection with certain effects demands that some causes are intelligent, not natural (e.g., arrow heads, language, codes, forensic evidence, and archaeological artifacts).

4. Darwin’s False Analogy between Artificial Selection and Natural Selection

1. Analogies are good when the similarities are 1. Analogies are good when the similarities are strong.strong.

2. But analogies are bad when the differences are2. But analogies are bad when the differences are

great, such as those between artificial great, such as those between artificial selection and natural selection. selection and natural selection.

A False Analogy: Crucial DifferencesA False Analogy: Crucial Differences Artificial Selection Natural SelectionIntelligently Guided Not Intelligently Guided

Goal in Mind No Goal in Mind

Choice of Breeds No Choice of Breeds

Interruption to Reach Goal No Interruption for Goal

Protection from No Protection from

Destructive Forces Destructive Forces

Freaks Preserved Freaks Eliminated

Preferential Survival No Preferential Survival

Note: Evolution is based on crucial similarities of these, and these are different in almost all crucial respects.

Artificial Selection Natural SelectionIntelligently Guided Not Intelligently Guided

Goal in Mind No Goal in Mind

Choice of Breeds No Choice of Breeds

Interruption to Reach Goal No Interruption for Goal

Protection from No Protection from

Destructive Forces Destructive Forces

Freaks Preserved Freaks Eliminated

Preferential Survival No Preferential Survival

Note: Evolution is based on crucial similarities of these, and these are different in almost all crucial respects.

Microevolution Microevolution within typewithin type: : YESYES

Macroevolution Macroevolution across types:across types: NONO

SurvivalSurvival of an existing kind differs from of an existing kind differs from arrivalarrival of a of a brand new kind.brand new kind.

Small changes Small changes withinwithin a typea type of life differ from big of life differ from big changes changes fromfrom one type to another type one type to another type of life.of life.

5. Failing to See How the Principle of Uniformity Supports Creation

5. Failing to See How the Principle of Uniformity Supports Creation

“Analogy is based upon the probability that similar things have causes of the same kind and produce the same effects." And "this probability increases as the similitude becomes more perfect" (Laplace, Probabilities, 180).

Thus, scientific views about the past are derived with "the aid of proofs drawn from these analogies [with the present]" (ibid., 100).

But repeated experience in the present shows us that some things have intelligent causes. The same is true of similar events in the past.

6. Assuming an Unbroken Continuity of Causes 1. This assumes (not proves) there is no beginning to

the universe and/or life. a. We know there is a beginning of life. b. There is good evidence that there is a

beginning of the universe (see below). 2. It misunderstands the principle of causality. a. Every cause does not need a cause. b. Only every effect needs a cause. 1) Everything that begins needs a cause, but--. 2) The Beginner does not need a cause.

Voiding the Principle of ContinuityVoiding the Principle of Continuity Voiding the Principle of ContinuityVoiding the Principle of Continuity "There is a kind of religion in

science. It is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe.... Every effect must have its cause: There is no first cause.... This religious faith of the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning …(Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 113-114).

The principle of continuity is based on false premises that: 1) Every cause has a cause rather than every effect has a cause; 2) The universe is eternal (which the scientific evidence shows it is not).

"There is a kind of religion in science. It is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe.... Every effect must have its cause: There is no first cause.... This religious faith of the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning …(Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 113-114).

The principle of continuity is based on false premises that: 1) Every cause has a cause rather than every effect has a cause; 2) The universe is eternal (which the scientific evidence shows it is not).

7. “The God-of-the-Gap” Objection Fails on Origins7. “The God-of-the-Gap” Objection Fails on Origins1. The “God-of-the-gaps” argument is a valid objection when

applied to empirical science, that is, the operation of the universe (because regular patterns are always produced by natural causes, even if we do not know what these causes are).

2. But singularities like the origin of matter and of life are not regular events. Hence, they do not automatically call for a natural cause.

3. When applied to singularities, “God-of-Gaps” is based on the false premise that all causes are natural causes.

4. It is not the absence of evidence that calls for an intelligent cause; It is the presence of specified complexity that calls for an intelligent cause.

5. It is not the absence of evidence that leads to positing a supernatural Cause of the Universe but the presence of unique evidence from the Big Bang and the Anthropic Principle.

Summary: Basic Mistakes of Anti-CreationistsSummary: Basic Mistakes of Anti-Creationists A. Limiting science to only natural causes (“nature-of- the-

gaps” fallacy= Methodological Naturalism). B. Failing to see that only regular events demand natural

causes (Empirical science deals only with regular events. Singularities may have an intelligent cause. Only the evidence can tell).

C. Failing to see how principles of regularity and uniformity (analogy) point to an intelligent cause.

D. Confusing Uniformity and Uniformitarianism. E. Failing to distinguish Origin Science from Operation

Science. F. Assuming an Unbroken Continuity of Causes. Conclusion: Given these mistakes, naturalism fails, and positing

an intelligent Creator is scientific.

OutlineOutlineI. The Origin of Science in Creation

II. The Mistakes of Creationists

III. The Rise of Anti-Creation Views

IV. The Mistakes of Anti-Creationists

V. The Reemergence of Origin Science

A. New Discoveries

I. The Origin of Science in Creation

II. The Mistakes of Creationists

III. The Rise of Anti-Creation Views

IV. The Mistakes of Anti-Creationists

V. The Reemergence of Origin Science

A. New Discoveries

1. 1. Reopening the Door to God:Reopening the Door to God:With a Big Bang!With a Big Bang!

"The scientists pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation…” (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 115).

Guillermo GonzalezGuillermo Gonzalez

2. Discovering--2. Discovering--

3. Looking inside-- 3. Looking inside-- .

Intelligent Design of Life: Intelligent Design of Life:

"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science." "Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity" (Behe, DBB, 193).

B. Old Principles1. The Principle of Causality

B. Old Principles1. The Principle of Causality

Bacon: He speaks of “knowledge by causes" (Novum Organum., 2:2:121).

Hume: “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause" (Hume, Letters, 1:187).

Laplace: He speaks of “the evident principle that a thing cannot occur without a cause which produces it" (Laplace, Probabilities, 4).

Bacon: He speaks of “knowledge by causes" (Novum Organum., 2:2:121).

Hume: “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause" (Hume, Letters, 1:187).

Laplace: He speaks of “the evident principle that a thing cannot occur without a cause which produces it" (Laplace, Probabilities, 4).

2. The Principle of Uniformity (Analogy)2. The Principle of Uniformity (Analogy)Hume (1748): Hume (1748): “All our reasoning concerning matter of fact “All our reasoning concerning matter of fact

are founded on a species of are founded on a species of analogyanalogy, which , which leads us to leads us to expect from any cause the same eventsexpect from any cause the same events, which we have , which we have observed to result from similar causes. observed to result from similar causes. Where the causes Where the causes are entirely similar, the analogy is perfect…” (are entirely similar, the analogy is perfect…” (An Enquiry An Enquiry Concerning Human UnderstandingConcerning Human Understanding, Sect. IX)., Sect. IX).

Laplace (1814):Laplace (1814): “Analogy is based upon probability, that “Analogy is based upon probability, that similar things have causes of the same kind and produce similar things have causes of the same kind and produce the same effects.the same effects. This probability increases as the This probability increases as the similitude becomes more perfect” (similitude becomes more perfect” (ProbabilitiesProbabilities, 180)., 180).

Lyell (1887):Lyell (1887): “Causes “Causes similar in kindsimilar in kind and energy to those and energy to those now acting, have produced the former changes of the now acting, have produced the former changes of the earth’s surface…” (Lyell, earth’s surface…” (Lyell, Principles of GeologyPrinciples of Geology, 88)., 88).

Charles Lyell (1814)

3. The Principle of Regularity David Hume (1748):David Hume (1748): Causal connections are posited based on Causal connections are posited based on

constant conjunction (custom).constant conjunction (custom). “ “All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of

custom.... custom.... Custom, then, is the great guide of human life” Custom, then, is the great guide of human life” (Enquiry, Sect. 5, Part I). (Enquiry, Sect. 5, Part I). This “constant conjunction” or “uniform experience” can be so This “constant conjunction” or “uniform experience” can be so regular that we may even call it a “proof”regular that we may even call it a “proof” (Sect. 6, note 8; Sect (Sect. 6, note 8; Sect X, Part I). In fact, “there are some causes, which are entirely X, Part I). In fact, “there are some causes, which are entirely uniform and constant in producing a particular effect;uniform and constant in producing a particular effect; and no and no instance has ever been found of any failure or irregularity in instance has ever been found of any failure or irregularity in their operation. Fire has always burned, and water suffocated their operation. Fire has always burned, and water suffocated every human creature…and gravity is every human creature…and gravity is an universal lawan universal law, which , which has hitherto has hitherto admitted of no exception” admitted of no exception” (ibid., Sect. 6).(ibid., Sect. 6).

V. The Reemergence of Origin ScienceV. The Reemergence of Origin Science

A. New Discoveries

B. Old Principles

C. New Conclusions

1. A Supernatural Cause

2. A Super-intelligent Cause

3. An Intelligent Designer

Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow:

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world…; the chain of events leading to man commence suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy" (God and the Astronomers, 14).

Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow:

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world…; the chain of events leading to man commence suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy" (God and the Astronomers, 14).

In the Beginning God... In the Beginning God... "The scientists’ pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'" (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 115).

"The scientists’ pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'" (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 115).

Second Law of Thermodynamics Second Law of Thermodynamics

•

• “Once hydrogen has been burned within that star and converted to heavier elements, it can never be restored to its original state. Minute by minute and year by year, as hydrogen is used up in stars, the supply of this element in the universe grows smaller” (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16).

• “Once hydrogen has been burned within that star and converted to heavier elements, it can never be restored to its original state. Minute by minute and year by year, as hydrogen is used up in stars, the supply of this element in the universe grows smaller” (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16).

UNUSABLEENERGY

The Logical ConclusionThe Logical Conclusion1. The natural world had beginning.

2. Whatever began, had a cause.

3. The natural world had a supernatural Cause.

(The Cause of all of nature can’t be natural. It is beyond nature).

Big Bang Points to Genesis 1:1Big Bang Points to Genesis 1:1 “Whatever its name, as far as

most physicists are concerned, the Big Bang is now part of the established structure of modern physics…. If the Big Bang expresses a new idea in physics, it suggests an old idea in thought: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, 70).

Former Atheist: “The Big Bang cries out

for a divine explanation. It forces us to the conclusion that nature had a definite beginning. I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a super-natural force that is outside of space and time could have done that” (p. 67).

Former Atheist: “The Big Bang cries out

for a divine explanation. It forces us to the conclusion that nature had a definite beginning. I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a super-natural force that is outside of space and time could have done that” (p. 67).

The Anthropic Principle The Anthropic Principle "The anthropic principle is the most

interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It is a very theistic result" (Jastrow, Christianity Today [1982], 17).

"The anthropic principle is the most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It is a very theistic result" (Jastrow, Christianity Today [1982], 17).

Universe was Fine-Tuned for Human Life Universe was Fine-Tuned for Human Life1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life.

2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist.

3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for life.

4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life.

5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for life.

6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life.

7. The speed of light is proper amount for life.

8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together.

9. The distance between stars is necessary for life.

10. The cosmological constant (energy density of space) is minutely right for matter to exist.

11. The right amount of seismic activity is needed for life.

12. The position of Jupiter protects life on earth.

1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life.

2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist.

3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for life.

4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life.

5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for life.

6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life.

7. The speed of light is proper amount for life.

8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together.

9. The distance between stars is necessary for life.

10. The cosmological constant (energy density of space) is minutely right for matter to exist.

11. The right amount of seismic activity is needed for life.

12. The position of Jupiter protects life on earth.

Just the right place

Just the Right TimeJust the Right Time The earth is not only The earth is not only

(1) in the best place (1) in the best place in the solar system in the solar system for life, and (2) the for life, and (2) the best place in the best place in the universe for life, but universe for life, but (3) it now is the best (3) it now is the best time to view its place time to view its place in the universe!in the universe!

V. The Reemergence of Origin ScienceV. The Reemergence of Origin ScienceNew Evidence from:1. The Big Bang

2. The Anthropic Principle

3. Micro-biology

V. The Reemergence of Origin ScienceV. The Reemergence of Origin ScienceNew Evidence from:1. The Big Bang

2. The Anthropic Principle

3. Micro-biology

Plus three venerable scientific principles:1) The Principle of Causality

2) The Principle of Uniformity (Analogy)

3) The Principle of Regularity

Life Needs an Intelligent Cause

Harvard’s Louis Agassiz (1807‑1873)

Life Needs an Intelligent Cause

Harvard’s Louis Agassiz (1807‑1873)

“[Darwin] lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which permeates the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind…and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature” (American Journal of Science, 1860).

“[Darwin] lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which permeates the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind…and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature” (American Journal of Science, 1860).

One Ameba =1,000 Sets

One Ameba =1,000 Sets

Whose Whose Signature in the CellSignature in the Cell??

Stephen MeyerStephen Meyer

“ “Indeed, our Indeed, our uniform uniform experience affirmsexperience affirms that that specified information—specified information—whether whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a radio signal, or produced in a

simulation experimentsimulation experiment——always always arise from an intelligent arise from an intelligent source,source, from a mind and not a strictly material process. from a mind and not a strictly material process. So the discovery of the specified digital information in So the discovery of the specified digital information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of the DNA…. that intelligence played a role in the origin of the DNA…. Intelligent design best explains the DNA enigma”Intelligent design best explains the DNA enigma” (347). (347).

a bacterial rotary motora bacterial rotary motora bacterial rotary motora bacterial rotary motor Analogy calls for an intelligent Cause of Analogy calls for an intelligent Cause of

Non-Theist Ally of Intelligent DesignNon-Theist Ally of Intelligent DesignHe says he see “big holes in He says he see “big holes in Darwinism. It’s inadequate as a Darwinism. It’s inadequate as a theory, and I feel very theory, and I feel very sympathetic, very warm, towards sympathetic, very warm, towards Intelligent Design….Intelligent Design…. We have to We have to maintain a completely open maintain a completely open mind, and mind, and I see no reason that I see no reason that the insights of Christian the insights of Christian theology…should be ruled out of theology…should be ruled out of court at the very beginningcourt at the very beginning because they’re incompatible because they’re incompatible with a certain idea of what with a certain idea of what science is really about” (cited in science is really about” (cited in WorldWorld, 12/19/09)., 12/19/09).

David Berlinski, Ph.D.David Berlinski, Ph.D.

How Science was Hijacked and now has-

“Returned to the Hand that Fed It”

How Science was Hijacked and now has-

“Returned to the Hand that Fed It”

Bacon

Kepler Galileo

Newton

Where have all the flowers gone?

• Nature returns to its supernatural roots.

• The natural creation points to its supernatural Creator.

• Evidence of thought in living things leads to the Thinker behind it.

The Supernatural Reemerges The Supernatural Reemerges

–

• "That there are what I or anyone would call super natural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact" (Jastrow in Christianity Today [1982], 8).

• "That there are what I or anyone would call super natural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact" (Jastrow in Christianity Today [1982], 8).

“It is simply inconceivable that any material matrix or field can generate agents who think and act…. A force field does not plan or think. So…the world of living, conscious, thinking beings has to originate in a living Source, a Mind” (There is a God, 183).

Anthony Flew: Former World-famous AtheistAnthony Flew: Former World-famous Atheist

Get The Whole Story Get The Whole Story

For More InformationFor More Information

www.normgeisler.com

Languages Have Specified ComplexityLanguages Have Specified Complexity

Hubert Yockey: “The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written languages and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981).

Hubert Yockey: “The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written languages and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981).

Information TheoryInformation Theory Letter sequence

reveals whether information is being conveyed by a series of letters, even if one does not know the language.

Letter sequence reveals whether information is being conveyed by a series of letters, even if one does not know the language.

Claude E. ShannonClaude E. Shannon

2. Failing to Understand the Science of Intelligent Causes.2. Failing to Understand the Science of Intelligent Causes.

Sciences Using Intelligent Causes:1. Forensic Science

2. Archaeology 3. Cryptology 4. Information Theory 5. SETI Program 6. Intelligent Design (ID) Science