THOUGHTS ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

INDEX (click to jump to any section)THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE—an intro to why both creationist and evolutionary theories depend on faith....................................................................................................................................................................1PART 1--ARTICLES FROM WORLD-CLASS SCIENTISTS WHO SUPPORT CREATION.....................4

SCIENTISTS AND THEIR GODS by Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III, world famous chemist....4A SCIENTIST REFLECTS ON RELIGIOUS BELIEF, by Dr. Allan Sandage, world famous cosmologist..................................................................................................................................................16OUR “TAILOR MADE” UNIVERSE.....................................................................................................18

PART 2--WHY MACRO-EVOLUTION IS A DOGMATIC, METAPHYSICAL RELIGION....................20PART 3: GREAT SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE..........................................................................................29

CHRISTIAN NOBEL NOMINEES/WINNERS.....................................................................................29PRESTIGIOUS CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS IN HISTORY.................................................................31FAMOUS CHRISTIAN/JEWISH CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS CURRENTLY............................35

PART 4--EVOLUTIONIST AND AGNOSTIC EXPERT QUOTES AGAINST EVOLUTION..................40PART 5—CASE STUDIES OF PROPAGANDA FROM SCIENTISTS.......................................................46

PROPAGANDA EXAMPLE #1: Evolutionists Say Canyons Can’t Form in a Short Time, BUT They Do!................................................................................................................................................................46PROPAGANDA EXAMPLE #2: Evolutionists and Creationists Claim to Know the Age of the Earth—But, Both Are Only Guessing......................................................................................................................47

OTHER QUOTES............................................................................................................................................49EXTRA STUFF TO ADD...............................................................................................................................51

CREATION/EVOLUTION DEBATE.........................................................................................................51

THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE—an intro to why both creationist and evolutionary theories depend on faithThis file has all the sections listed below…I highly recommend you read articles in part 1. Part 2 is an article I wrote proving that evolution is hugely dependent on faith and that it has become at least as dogmatic as the middle ages Catholic church was in suppressing opposing viewpoints. Part 3 shows numerous elite scientists in history and currently who believe in creation. Part 4 shows many elite evolutionist scientists who doubt seriously evolution and its claim to being truly scientific and observable.

Karl Popper wrote about evolution before he died, "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme ....." (Karl Popper in his autobiography "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography", Fontana Books, 1976). Unfortunately, most secular scientists do not even know this and do not understand how shaky the scientific foundation for their theory is because they have not been allowed by the establishment to seriously investigate any alternative viewpoint other than evolution. This article is not going to deal with the science issues. Rather, I want to show that evolution is directly controverting the principles of openness and objectivity that are supposed to be at the basis of all true science. It is perverting the institution into a dogmatic and biased institution that suppresses all other viewpoints. This is the farthest thing from true science and must be recognized and ended.

Both creationists and evolutionists use a significant amount of faith in their theories. One of the main points I want to hammer home in this article is that creationists admit it, but evolutionists use far more faith than creationists do and yet ridicule creationists for their small use of faith. Creation science has far more scientific support in most areas than evolution does and most is observable here and now, not hundreds of millions of years ago.

There are many intelligent and sincere evolutionists, but the establishment does not allow objective discussion of the evidence and many of them have never even heard of the evidence for opposing viewpoints, esp. ones regarding creationism (many purely scientific defenses for creation do exist…one of the best being at www.creationscience.com a site done by Dr. Brown a graduate of MIT with a ph.d. and true objectivity—a man who doesn’t claim that his theory is perfect an unchallengeable…but welcomes challenges and criticism so that it will become stronger scientifically.)

Unfortunately, most evolution scientists and especially the elite journals do not at all follow true objectivity in their search for truth. They have decided a priori that opposing theories (not just limited to creationism) are wrong and denies them even the chance to be heard as well as money for research and many other similar benefits. They are far more concerned with supporting its own dogma than with the real scientific evidence. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the case study in part 2. It’s very short, but proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolutionists mostly ridicule and ban other explanations that don’t match their preconceived notions in the same way that the Catholic church banned Galileo’s works. This isn’t true science in any way, shape or form. And yet even Time magazine has let it’s science reports descend to the level of schoolboy insults when discussing this most important of all questions—the questions of origin and who we are and our place in the universe.

I strongly urge you to read these articles and then to research some of the websites with more detailed scientific proofs for creation science. Some of the best are:

www.creationscience.com, http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html (The movie on the middle right is awesome) http://www.nwcreation.net/ (great site with many excellent videos, media and graphics and

more to prove many ideas of creation scientific) http://www.thedarwinpapers.com (some of the history of evolution theory showing that

Darwin plagiarized other’s ideas somewhat. Also shows the destructive effects of evolution in combination with Nazism and atheism which resulted in ~100 million deaths directly as a result of the idea of “survival of the fittest” being applied to human beings. See the “Darwin at Nuremburg” sections and note the quote: “I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible"Jewish scholar Edward Simon).

I tend to agree with Prof. Louis Bounoure, President Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research who wrote, "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." The Advocate, p. 17

Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of rocket science, wrote of a far more logical line of thinking when he said, "...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"

There are so many more important things to spend our time and money on. But, centuries and billions have been wasted on a theory that often produces nothing beneficial. It is an enormous waste of resources for something that has so little proof. It’s time that we got a little wiser and started using our money and scientific intelligence for something far more useful, something like ending poverty or ending hunger or ensuring that everyone in the world can get a scientific education that is truly objective and not reminiscent of the middle ages inquisitions. Free and true creative thinking should be encouraged as long as it is based on observable evidence.

Sincerely,

Bryan Bissell

PART 1--ARTICLES FROM WORLD-CLASS SCIENTISTS WHO SUPPORT CREATION

SCIENTISTS AND THEIR GODS by Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III, world famous chemist(also known as Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? )Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III, http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/scientists.html

Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize 5 times and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.

The Genesis of This LectureI first began teaching freshman chemistry at Berkeley in the spring of 1983. Typically we lectured in halls that held about 550. On the first day of class you could fit in 680, which we had that particular morning. It was a full auditorium. Those of you who have had freshman chemistry at a large university will know that many have mixed feelings about that course.

I had never addressed a group of 680 people before and was a bit concerned about it. But I had a fantastic demonstration prepared for them. At Berkeley in the physical science lecture hall, the stage is in three parts. It rotated around, so you could go to your part of the stage and work for several hours before your lecture, getting everything ready. My assistant, Lonny Martin who did all the chemistry demonstrations at Berkley, was in the process of setting up 10 moles of a large number of quantities—10 moles of benzene, iron, mercury, ethyl alcohol, water, etc. At just the right time, at the grand crescendo of this lecture, I was going to press the button and Lonny would come turning around and show them the ten moles of various items. The student would have great insight as they realized that all these had in common was about the same number of molecules of each one.

It was going to be wonderful. We got to that point in the lecture and I said, "Lonny, come around and show us the moles." I pressed the button to rotate the stage but nothing happened. I didn't realize that he was overriding my button press because he wasn't ready with the moles. This was very embarrassing. I went out in front of the 680 students and was really at a complete loss of what to say, so I made some unprepared remarks. I said, "While we're waiting for the moles, let me tell you what happened to me in church yesterday morning."

I was desperate. There was great silence among those 680 students. They had come with all manner of anticipations about freshman chemistry, but stories about church were not among them!

I continued, "Let me tell you what my Sunday School teacher said yesterday." That raised their interest even more. "I was hoping the group at church would give me some support, moral, spiritual, or whatever for dealing with this large class, but I received none. In fact, the Sunday School teacher asked the class, in honor of me:What was the difference between a dead dog lying in the middle of the street and a dead chemistry professor lying in the middle of the street?

The class was excited about this and I hadn't even gotten to the punch line. They roared with laughter. The very concept of a dead chemistry professor lying in the middle of the street was hilarious to them. I'm sure

some of them began to think, "If this guy were to become a dead chemistry professor very close to the final exam, we probably wouldn't have to take the final exam. They'd probably give us all passing grades and this would be wonderful."

I told them my Sunday school teacher had said that the difference between the dead dog lying in the middle of the road and the dead chemistry professor lying in the middle of the road is that there are skid marks in front of the dead dog.

The class thought this was wonderful! Just as they settled down, I pressed the button and around came Lonny with the moles. It was a wonderful beginning to my career as a freshman chemistry lecturer.

About 50 students came down at the end of class. About half had the usual questions like "Which dot do I punch out of this registration card?" There is always some of that. But about half of these students all had something like the same question. Basically they wanted to know "What were you doing in church yesterday?" One in particular said, "The person I most have admired in my life was my high school chemistry teacher last year. He told me with great certainty that it was impossible to be a practicing chemist and have any religious view whatever. What do you think about that?"

We didn't have a long discussion at that time, but the students asked me if I would speak further on this topic. That became the origin of this lecture.

I gave this talk in Berkeley and in the San Francisco area many times. When I moved to the University of Georgia several years ago, the interest increased. And some faculty members complained to the administration. It was an interesting chapter in my life. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, the largest newspaper in the southeastern United States, came out with an editorial supporting my right to give this talk, saying, "Fanatics are demanding rigorous control over the dissemination of ideas."

A Perspective on the Relation of Science and ChristianityLet's put this question of the relationship between science and Christianity with as broadest, most reasonable perspective we can. The relation between science and other intellectual pursuits has not always been easy. Therefore, many feel there has been a terrible warfare between science and Christianity. But I feel this is not the whole story.

For example, the recent literature text by Susan Gallagher and Roger Lundeen says, Because in recent history, literature has often found itself in opposition to science, to understand modern views about literature the dominance of science in our culture. For several centuries, scientists have set the standards of truth for Western culture. And their undeniable usefulness in helping us organize, analyze, and manipulate facts has given them an unprecedented importance in modern society.

Not everybody has liked that. For example, John Keats, the great romantic poet, did not like Isaac Newton's view of reality. He said it threatened to destroy all the beauty in the universe. He feared that a world in which myths and poetic visions had vanished would become a barren and uninviting place. In his poem Lamia, he talks about this destructive power. In this poem, he calls "science" "philosophy", so I will try to replace the word "philosophy" with "science" because that is what he means.

Do not all charms flyAt the mere touch of cold science?There was an awful rainbow once in heavenWe knew her woof and texture.She is given in the dull catalog of common things.Science will clip an angels wings,Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,

Empty the haunted air and gnome's mind,Unweave a rainbow.

My point is there has been some sparring between science and virtually every other intellectual endeavor. So it should not be entirely surprising if there weren't a bit of that between science and Christianity.

Has Science Disproved God?Nevertheless, the position is commonly stated that "science has disproved God." C. S. Lewis says, in his autobiography Surprised by Joy, that he believed that statement. He talks about the atheism of his early youth and credits it to science. He says,

You will understand that my atheism was inevitably based on what I believed to be the findings of the sciences and those findings, not being a scientist, I had to take on trust, in fact, on authority.

What he's saying is that somebody told him that science had disproved God and he believe it, even though he didn't know anything about science.

A more balanced view is this by one of my scientific heroes, Erwin Schrodinger. He was the founder of wave mechanics and the originator of what is the most important equation in science, Schrodinger's equation. He says,

I'm very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

People do tell good stories. Scientists do tell some interesting stories about religion. This one is from Chemistry in Britain, which is kind of like the Time Magazine of the chemical profession in England. Talking about the release of a new book on science policy, they explore an interesting idea.If God applied to the government for a research grant for the development of a heaven and earth, he would be turned down on the following grounds:

His project is too ambitious.He has no previous track record.His only publication is only a book and not a paper in a refereed journal.He refuses to collaborate with his biggest competitor.His proposal for a heaven and earth is all up in the air.

The Alternatives to Belief in the Sovereign God of the Universe

Lev LandauI want to give examples of two atheists. The first is Lev Landau, the most brilliant Soviet physicist of this century. He was the author of many famous books with his coworker Lifchets. I actually used some of these books as a student at M.I.T. This is a story about Landau from his good friend and biographer Kolotnikov. This appeared in Physics Today. This is a story from the end of Landau's life. Kolotnikov saysThe last time I saw Landau was in 1968 after he had an operation. His health had greatly deteriorated. Lifchets and I were summoned to the hospital. We were informed that there was practically no chance he could be saved. When I entered his ward, Landau was lying on his side with his face turned to the wall. He heard my steps, turned his head, and said, "Kollat, please save me." Those were the last words I heard from Landau. He died that night.

Subrahmanyan ChandrasekharChandrasekhar was a famous astrophysicist. He won the Nobel prize in physics in 1983. He was a faculty member at the University of Chicago for many years. At the back of his biography is an interview. Chandrasekhar says,

In fact, I consider myself an atheist. But I have a feeling of disappointment because the hope for contentment and a peaceful outlook on life as the result of pursuing a goal has remained largely unfulfilled.

His biographer is astonished. He says:What? I don't understand. You mean, single–minded pursuit of science, understanding parts of nature and comprehending nature with such enormous success still leaves you with a feeling of discontentment?

Chandrasekhar continues in a serious way, saying:I don't really have a sense of fulfillment. All I have done seems to not be very much.

The biographer seeks to lighten up the discussion a little saying that everybody has the same sort of feelings. But Chandrasekhar will not let him do this, saying:

Well that may be, but the fact that other people experience it doesn't change the fact that one is experiencing it. It doesn't become less personal on that account.

And Chandrasekhar's final statement:What is true in my own personal case is that I simply don't have that sense of harmony which I'd hoped for when I was young. I've persevered in science for over fifty years. The time I've devoted to other things is miniscule.

Is it Possible to be a Scientist and a Christian?So the question I want to explore is the one that I was asked by that young man after my freshman chemistry class at Berkeley, "Is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian." The student and his high school chemistry teacher obviously thought it was not possible.

C. P. SnowLet me begin from pretty neutral ground by quoting two people with no particular theistic inclination. The first one is C. P. Snow. C. P. Snow used to be very famous as the author of a book called The Two Cultures. C. P. Snow was a physical chemist at Oxford University. He discovered about halfway through his career that he also was a gifted writer and he began writing novels. They are about university life in England. One in particular is called Masters, which I would recommend. C. P. Snow became quite wealthy doing this and then he was able to sit in an in–between position, between the world of the sciences and the world of literature.

He wrote this book, which in it's time was very famous, about the two cultures—the sciences and the humanities. He said statistically slightly more scientists are in religious terms, unbelievers, compared with the rest of the intellectual world, although there are plenty that are religious and that seems to be increasingly so among the young. So is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian? C. P. Snow, who was certainly not a Christian, said yes.

Richard FeynmanRichard Feynman, Nobel prize in physics in 1965, was a very unusual person. He said some 9 years before receiving the Nobel prize, "Many scientists do believe in both science and God, the God of revelation, in a perfectly consistent way." So is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian? Yes according to Richard Feynman.

A good summary statement in this regard is by Alan Lightman, who has written a very well–received book called Origins. He's an M.I.T. professor who has published this book with Harvard University Press. He says,

References to God continued in the scientific literature until the middle to late 1800's. It seems likely that the lack of religious references after this time seem more from a change in social and professional conventions among scientists rather than from any change in underlying thought. Indeed, contrary to popular myth, scientists appear to have the same range of attitudes about religious matters as does the general public.

Now one could regard that statement as strictly anecdotal. Americans love statistics. Here's the result of a poll of the professional society Sigma Zi. Three thousand three hundred responded, so this is certainly beyond statistical uncertainty. The headline says, "Scientists are anchored in the U. S. mainstream." It says that half participate in religious activities regularly. Looking at the poll is that 43% of Ph.D. scientists are in church on a typical Sunday. In the American public, 44% are in church on a typical Sunday. So it's clear that whatever it is that causes people to have religious inclinations is unrelated to having an advanced degree in science.

Michael PolanyiLet go a little deeper with a statement from Michael Polanyi, professor of chemistry and then philosophy at the University of Manchester. His son, John Polanyi, won the Nobel prize in 1986. I think that it's probably true that when John Polanyi's scientific accomplishments, which have been magnificent, have been mostly forgotten, his father's work will continue.

Michael Polanyi was a great physical chemist at the University of Manchester. About halfway through his career, he switched over to philosophy. He was equally distinguished there. His books are not easy to ready. His most influential book is called Personal Knowledge. He was of Jewish physical descent. He was born in Hungary. About the same time he switched from chemistry to philosophy, he joined the Roman Catholic church. He said,

I shall reexamine the suppositions underlying our belief in science and propose to show that they are more extensive than is usually thought. They will appear to coextend with the entire spiritual foundations of man and to go to the very root of his social existence. Hence I will urge our belief in science should be regarded as a token of much wider convictions.

If you read the rest of the book, you will probably make the same conclusion that I make. I've concluded that Polanyi is pointing out that the observer is always there in the laboratory. He always makes conclusions. He is never neutral. Every scientist brings presuppositions to his or her work. A scientist, for example, never questions the basic soundness of the scientific method. This faith of the scientist arose historically from the Christian belief that God the father created a perfectly orderly universe.

Now I want to give you some evidence of that.

Science Developed in a Christian EnvironmentI'd like to begin with an outrageous statement that always causes reaction. This is a statement from a British scientist, Robert Clark. It will make you think. He says,

However we may interpret the fact scientific development has only occurred in a Christian culture. The ancients had brains as good as ours. In all civilizations, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, India, Rome, Persia, China and so on, science developed to a certain point and then stopped. It is easy to argue speculatively that science might have been able to develop in the absence of Christianity, but in fact, it never did. And no wonder. For the non–Christian world felt there was something ethically wrong about science. In Greece, this conviction was enshrined in the legend of Prometheus, the fire–bearer and prototype scientist who stole fire from heaven thus incurring the wrath of the Gods."

I'd prefer if he had said "sustained scientific development." I think he's gone a little too far here, but this will certainly give people something to think about.

Francis BaconLet's explore the idea involved in the statements that Clark and Polanyi made, that is, that science grew up in a Christian environment. I was taught that Francis Bacon discovered the scientific method. The higher critics now claim he stole it from somebody else and just popularized it. We'll leave that to the science historians to settle.

One of Francis Bacon's statements is called the two–books statement. It's very famous. He said:Let no one think or maintain that a person can search too far or be too well studied in either the book of God's word or the book of God's works.

He's talking about the Bible as the book of God's words and nature as the book of God's works. He is encouraging learning as much as possible about both. So right at the beginning of the scientific method, we have this statement.

Johannes KeplerJohannes Kepler posited the idea of elliptical orbits for planets. He's considered the discoverer of the laws of planetary motion. He was a devout Lutheran Christian. When he was asked the question "Why do you do science?", he answered that he desired in his scientific research to obtain a sample test of the delight of the Divine Creator in his work and to partake of his joy. This has been said in many ways by other people, to think God's thoughts after him, to know the mind of man. Kepler might be considered a Deist based on this first statement alone. But he later said:

I believe only and alone in the service of Jesus Christ. In him is all refuge and solace.

Blaise PascalBlaise Pascal was a magnificent scientist. He is the father of the mathematical theory of probability and combinatorial analysis. He provided the essential link between the mechanics of fluids and the mechanics of rigid bodies. He is the only physical scientist to make profound contributions to Christian thinking. Many of these thoughts are found in the little book, The Pensees, which I had to read as a sophomore at M.I.T. (They were trying to civilize us geeks at M.I.T., but a few years later decided that it wasn't working, so we didn't have to take any more humanities courses.)

Pascal's theology is centered on the person of Jesus Christ as Savior and based on personal experience. He stated:

God makes people conscious of their inward wretchedness, which the Bible calls "sin" and his infinite mercy. Unites himself to their inmost soul, fills it with humility and joy, with confidence and love, renders them incapable of any other end than Himself. Jesus Christ is the end of all and the center to which all tends.

Pascal also said:At the center of every human being is a God–shaped vacuum which can only be filled by Jesus Christ.

Robert BoyleRobert Boyle was perhaps the first chemist. He developed the idea of atoms. Many of my freshman chemistry students know Boyle's law. Every once in a while I'll meet one of my former chemistry students. I ask them "What do you remember from the course?" Occasionally they will say: pv = nrt. Then I know I was successful. This is the ideal gas law of which Boyle's law is a part.

Boyle was a busy man. He wrote many books. One is The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation. He personally endowed an annual lectureship promoted to the defense of Christianity against indifferentism and atheism. He was a good friend of Richard Baxter, one of the great Puritan theologians. He was governor of the Corporation for the Spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in New England.

Isaac NewtonAlthough I disagree, a recent poll on who the most important person of history was gave that honor to Sir Isaac Newton. Newton was a mathematician, physicist, co–discoverer with Liebnitz of calculus, the founder of classical physics. He was the first of the three great theoretical physicists. He wrote about a lot of other things. He tried to do chemistry, but was a little bit before his time. He wrote more books on theology than on science. He wrote one about the return of Jesus Christ entitled Observations on the prophecy of Daniel and the Revelation of Saint John. He said:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

One might assume from this statement that Newton was a Deist (system of natural religion that affirms God's existence but denies revelation). However, quotes like this shows this is not true:

There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history.

One concludes that Newton was a Biblical literalist. It was not enough that an article of faith could be deduced from Scripture, he said:

It must be expressed in the very form of sound words in which it was delivered by the apostles. For men are apt to run into partings about deductions. All the old heresies lie in deductions. The true faith was in the Biblical texts.

George Trevellian, a secular historian, summarized the contributions of these individuals as follows:Boyle, Newton and the early members of the Royal Society were religious men who repudiated the skeptical doctrines of Thomas Hobbs. But they familiarized the minds of their countrymen with the idea of law in the universe and with scientific methods of inquiry to discover truth. It was believed that these methods would never lead to any conclusions inconsistent with Biblical history and miraculous religion. Newton lived and died in that faith.

Michael FaradayMy very favorite—and probably the greatest experimental scientist of all—is Michael Faraday. The two hundredth birthday of Michael Faraday's birth was recently celebrated at the Royal Institution (multi–disciplinary research laboratory in London). There was an interesting article published by my friend Sir John Thomas, who said if Michael Faraday had been living in the era of the Nobel prize, he would have been worthy of at least eight Nobel prizes. Faraday discovered benzene and electromagnetic radiation, invented the generator and was the main architect of classical field theory.

Let me contrast the end of his life with the end of Lev Landau's life. Faraday was close to death. A friend and well–wisher came by and said, "Sir Michael, what speculations have you now?" This friend was trying to introduce some levity into the situation. Faraday's career had consisted of making speculations about science and then dash into the laboratory to either prove or disprove them. It was a reasonable thing to say.

Faraday took it very seriously. He replied:Speculations, man, I have none. I have certainties. I thank God that I don't rest my dying head upon speculations for "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I've committed unto him against that day."

James Clerk MaxwellThe second of the three great theoretical physicist of all time would certainly have been James Clerk Maxwell. Someone has documented Maxwell's career this way:

Maxwell possessed all the gifts necessary for revolutionary advances in theoretical physics—a profound grasp of physical reality, great mathematical ability, total absence of preconceived notions, a creative imagination of the highest order. He possessed also the gift to recognize the right task for this genius—the mathematical interpretation of Faraday's concept of electromagnetic field. Maxwell's successful completion of this task resulting in the mathematical [field] equations bearing his name, constituted one of the great achievements of the human intellect.

I disagree with one statement made above. If Maxwell indeed had a total absence of preconceived notions, he would have accomplished a total absence of science. So this is obviously written by somebody who is not a scientist (a squishyhead). However, this statement is basically good.

Maxwell said:Think what God has determined to do to all those who submit themselves to his righteousness and are willing to receive his gift [of eternal life in Jesus Christ]. They are to be conformed to the image of his Son and when that is fulfilled and God sees they are conformed to the image of Christ, there can be no more condemnation.

Maxwell and Charles Darwin were contemporaries. Many wonder what he thought of Darwin's theories. In fact, once he was to go to a meeting on the Italian Riviera in February to discuss new developments in science and the Bible. If you've ever spent time in Cambridge, England, you know it is very gloomy in the wintertime. If I had been a faculty there, I would have taken an opportunity to go to the Italian Riviera at this time of the year.

Maxwell turned down the invitation. He explained:The rate of change of scientific hypotheses is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical interpretation. So if an interpretation is founded on such a hypothesis it may help to keep the hypothesis above ground long after it ought to be buried and forgotten.

This is true. An example of this is the steady–state theory, which was popularized by Fred Hoyle and many others. It is one of the two competing theories of the origin of the universe. The steady–state hypothesis basically says that what you see is what was always there. It became less tenable in 1965 with the observation of the microwave background radiation by Arnold Pansias and Robert Wilson. There are not very many people left who believe in the steady–state hypothesis. It is interesting to go back to about 1960 and find commentaries on the book of Genesis and see how they explain how the steady–state hypothesis can be reconciled with the first chapter of Genesis. Any reasonable person can see that Genesis is talking about a beginning from nothing (ex nihilo), so it takes interesting explanations to reconcile a beginning with the steady–state hypothesis.

The steady–state hypothesis is going to be, within about 20 years, gone and forgotten. These commentaries will probably still be available in libraries and no one will be able to understand them.

Science is Inherently a Tentative Activity[Shaefer shows audience a well–known cartoon].In checking with several mathematicians, I came to realize that the equation in this cartoon means absolutely nothing at all, but the punch line is appropriate. [One character] says, "What is most depressing is the realization that everything we believe will be disproved in a few years." I hope that is not true of my work in quantum chemistry. I don't think it will be true, but there is some truth to this in that science is inherently a tentative activity. We come to understandings that are subjected to, at least, some further refinement.

Somebody who was obviously not an admirer of the Christianity of Faraday and Maxwell said:The religious decisions of Faraday and Maxwell were inelegant, but effective evasions of social problems that distracted and destroyed the qualities of the works of many of their ablest contemporaries.

What he is saying is that because they were Christians, Maxwell and Faraday did not become alcoholics nor womanizers nor social climbers as their able colleagues appeared to do.

Organic ChemistsWilliam Henry PerkinI need to put a little organic chemistry in here so that my colleagues on the organic side will know that I paid a little attention to them also. William Henry Perkin represents perhaps the first great synthetic organic chemist. Discoverer of the first synthetic dye and the person for whom the Perkin transactions of the Royal Society of London is named, Perkin sold his highly profitable business and retired to private research and church missionary ventures at the age of 35 in the year 1873.

George StokesWe can read about George Stokes in any issue of the Journal of Chemical Physics, which is the best journal in my field. In recent issues, Coherent Anti–Stokes Romin Spectroscopy (CARS) has been a subject of discussion. He is one of the great pioneers of spectroscopy, study of fluids and fluorescence. He held one of the most distinguished chairs in the academic world for more than fifty years, the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge—a position held by Sir Isaac Newton and currently by Stephen Hawking. He was also president of the Royal Society of London.

Stokes wrote on other topics besides organic chemistry, including the topic of natural theology. Concerning the issue of miracles, Stokes said:

Admit the existence of a personal God and the possibility of miracles follows at once. If the laws of nature are carried out in accordance with his will, he who willed them may will their suspension….

William ThomsonWilliam Thomson was later known as Lord Kelvin. Thomson was a fantastic scientist. He is recognized as the leading physical scientist and the greatest science teacher of his time. His early papers on electromagnetism and heat provide enduring proof of his scientific genius. He was a Christian with a strong faith in God and the Bible. He said:Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God.

J. J. ThomsonIn 1897, J. J. Thomson discovered the electron. He was the Cavendish professor of physics at Cambridge University.

The old Cavendish laboratory sits in the middle of Cambridge campus. So much was discovered there that it was turned into a museum. A total of fifteen Nobel Prizes resulted from work done there. Inscribed over its door is a Latin phrase "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." [A new] Cavendish laboratory was rebuilt out in the country. However, it also has this sentence from the book of Proverbs written over the door, but in English rather than Latin.

J. J. Thomson made this statement in Nature,In the distance tower still higher [scientific] peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.

Theoretical ChemistCharles Coulson

Charles Coulson is one of the three principal architects of the molecular orbital theory. He probably would have received the Nobel prize but he did not pass the first test. The first test to get the Nobel prize is to live to be 65 years old. The second test is to have done something very important when you were about 30 years old. Coulson did very significant work when he was in his thirties, but he died at 64, thus disqualifying himself from the Nobel prize.

Coulson, a professor of mathematics at Oxford University for many years was also a Methodist lay minister. He was a spokesman for Christians in academic science and the author of the term "God of the gaps" theology.

From the biographical memoir of the Royal Society after Charles Coulson's death, we read a description of his conversion to faith in Jesus Christ in 1930 as a 20–year–old student at Cambridge University. Coulson testified:

There were some ten of us and together we sought for God and together we found Him. I learned for the first time in my life that God was my friend. God became real to me, utterly real. I knew Him and could talk with Him as I never imagined it before and these prayers were the most glorious moment of the day. Life had a purpose and that purpose coloured everything.

Coulson's experience is fairly similar to my own at Berkeley. It would be nice if I could say there was a thunderclap from heaven and God spoke to me in audible terms and that is why I became a Christian. However, it did not happen that way, but I did have this same perception Coulson is talking about—this sense of purpose and more of a vividness to the colors of life.

The successor to Coulson as theoretical chemistry professor at Oxford, was Norman March, a good friend of mine. He as well is a Methodist lay minister.

Robert Griffiths, a member of our U.S. Academy of Sciences, Otto Stern professor of physics at Carnegie Mellon University received one of the most coveted awards of the American Physical Society in 1984 on his work in physical mechanics and thermodynamics. Physics Today said he is an evangelical Christian who is an amateur theologian and who helps teach a course on Christianity and science.

He recently said: If we need an atheist for a debate, I'd go to the philosophy department—the physics department isn't much use.

At Berkeley University, among 55 chemistry professors, we only had one who was willing to openly identify himself as an atheist, my good friend Bob, with whom I still have many discussions about spiritual things.

Richard BubeFor many years, Bube was the chairman of the department of materials science at Stanford and carried out foundational work on solid state physics concerning semiconductors. He said:

There are proportionately as many atheistic truck drivers as there are atheistic scientists.

John SuppeMember of the U.S. Academy of Sciences and noted professor of geology at Princeton, expert in the are of tectonics, began a long search for God as a Christian faculty member. He began attending services in the Princeton Chapel, reading the Bible and other Christian books. He committed Himself to Christ and had his first real experience of Christian fellowship in Taiwan, where he is on a fellowship. He states:

Some non–scientist Christians, when they meet a Christian, will call on to debate evolution. That is definitely the wrong thing to do. If you know what problems scientists have in their lives—pride, selfish ambition, jealousy—that's exactly the kind of thing Jesus Christ said that He came to resolve by His death on the cross. Science is full of people with very strong egos who get into conflict with each other. The gospel is the same for scientists as it is for anyone. Evolution is basically a red herring; if scientists are looking for meaning in their lives, it won't be found in evolution. I have never met a non–Christian who brought up evolution with me.

Charles H. TownesMy candidate for the scientist of the century is Charlie Townes. (Of course, he is a friend of mine and there could be some bias here.) He did something fairly significant when he discovered the laser. He almost got a second Nobel Prize for the first observation of an interstellar molecule. He has written his autobiography, entitled Making Waves (a pun referring to the wavelike phenomenon of lasers).

An excerpt from his life's story:You may well ask, "Where does God come into this," to me, that's almost a pointless question. If you believe in God at all, there is no particular "where"—He is always there, everywhere….To me, God is personal yet omnipresent. A great source of strength, He has made an enormous difference to me.

At eighty [years old], Charlie Townes still has a very active research program at Berkeley.

Arthur SchawlowSchawlow won a Nobel Prize in physics, 1981, serves as physics professor at Stanford and identifies himself as a Christian. He makes this unusual statement which I think could only be made by a scientist:We are fortunate to have the Bible, and especially the New Testament, which tells so much about God in widely accessible, human terms.

Allan SandageThe world's greatest observational cosmologist, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution, was called the Grand Old Man of cosmology by The New York Times when he won a $1 million prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. He said:

The nature of God is not to be found within any part of the findings of science. For that, one must turn to the Scriptures.

In one book, Sandage was asked the classic question, "Can one be a scientist and a Christian?" and he replied, "Yes, I am." Ethnically Jewish, Sandage became a Christian at the age of fifty—if that doesn't prove that it's never too late, I don't know what does!

This is the man who is responsible for our best values for the age of the universe: something like 14 billion years. Yet, when this brilliant cosmologist is asked to explain how one can be a scientist and a Christian, he doesn't turn to astronomy, but rather to biology:

The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance…I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order and each of its organisms is simply too well put together.

William Phillips Now in physics, you can be a lot younger and get the [Nobel] Prize. Phillips is not even 50 years old and he's got it already. His citation was for the development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light. At a press conference following the announcement of his winning the Nobel Prize, he said:

God has given us an incredibly fascinating world to live in and explore.

According to The New York Times, Phillips "formed and sings in the gospel choir at Fairhaven United Methodist Church, a multi–racial congregation of about 300 in Gaithersburg, Maryland. He also teaches Sunday School and leads Bible studies." If you read further in that article, you find out that every Saturday afternoon, he drives with his wife into downtown Washington, D.C. to pick up a blind, 87–year–old African American lady to take her grocery shopping and then to dinner.

David Cole & Francis CollinsSince my area of expertise is right between chemistry and physics, I cannot speak as well for the field of biological sciences. However, my longtime colleague, Berkeley biochemist David Cole and cystic fibrosis pioneer, Francis Collins—director of the Human Genome Project, the largest scientific project ever undertaken—are both well–known as outspoken Christians.

Why Are There So Few Atheists Among Physicists?Many scientists are considering the facts before them. They say things like:

The present arrangement of matter indicates a very special choice of initial conditions. —Paul Davies

In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that produced life like ours are immense. —Stephen Hawking

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. —Fred Hoyle

As the Apostle Paul said in his epistle to the Romans:Since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.

Why the Perception of Ongoing Battle?

The last question I want to ask, then, is this, Why do so many people still think that there is an ongoing battle between science and Christianity? I don't deny that there is an ongoing discussion. But I think the facts are that, what you think about God doesn't depend on whether you have a Ph.D. in the sciences.

Why would some people like to think that this supposed battle rages on? At least in part, I honestly feel it is a misrepresentation. Let me give you just one example. Andrew Dickson White was the first president of Cornell University, the first university in the United States formed on strictly secular principles. (All others had been founded on a Christian basis.) He wrote a very famous book, The History of the Warfare of Science With Theology, in 1896. An excerpt:

[John] Calvin took the lead in his commentary on Genesis, by condemning all who asserted that the earth is not the center of the universe. He clinched the matter by the usual reference to the first verse of the 93rd Psalm and asked, "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"

(This is not making John Calvin look very good!) What's the real story behind this? Alistair McGrath, Brampton Lecturer at Oxford University and perhaps the greatest living scholar on Calvin, has recently written an authoritative biography of Calvin, in which he goes into question with great detail:

This assertion of Calvin is slavishly repeated by virtually every science writer on the theme of religion and science, such as Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy. Yet it may be stated categorically that Calvin wrote no such words in his Genesis commentary and expressed no

such sentiments in any of his known writings. The assertion that he did is to be found characteristically unsubstantiated in the writings of the nineteenth century….

It would be fair to ask what Calvin really thought of Copernicus' heliocentric theory of the solar system, and the answer is that we don't know. He probably didn't even know about him—Copernicus was not exactly a household name in France or Switzerland in 1520. But in his preface of his translation of the New Testament into French, Calvin wrote:

The whole point of Scripture is to bring us to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and, having come to know Him with all that this implies, we should come to a halt and not expect to learn more.

Conclusion

I hope that I have given you a flavor of the history of science. Those of you who have taken a freshman chemistry or physics course will surely find many of these people familiar. In fact, the reason I have prepared this talk is that these represent the very people I have taught in such courses.

There is a tremendous tradition of distinguished scientists who were and are Christians. I hope that my work is considered sufficiently outstanding to fall into the distinguished among that category. I also hope I have given you enough evidence that you will never again believe that it is impossible to be a scientist and a Christian.----------------------

A SCIENTIST REFLECTS ON RELIGIOUS BELIEF, by Dr. Allan Sandage, world famous cosmologisthttp://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.html Dr. Allan Sandage, The world's greatest observational cosmologist Alan Sandage, of the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution, won a prize given by Swedish parliament equivalent to Nobel prize (there is no Nobel prize for cosmology) became a Christian after being a scientist

Q. Can the existence of God be proved?I should say not with the same type of certainty that we ascribe to statements such as "the earth is in orbit about the sun at a mean distance of 93 million miles, making a complete journey in 365.25 days," or "genetic information is coded in long protein strings of DNA that, in cells of a particular individual, replicate during mitosis, and in reproduction unite with DNA from another individual to produce the hereditary similarity of progeny with their parents, etc." The enormous success of modern science is undeniable in producing such facts, which have a strong ring of certainty, and this success simply cannot be ignored.

Proofs of the existence of God have always been of a different kind-a crucial point to be understood by those scientists who will only accept results that can be obtained via the scientific method. God can never be proved to them for that reason (Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God.) Science illumines brightly, but only a part of reality.

The classical proofs of God by Anselm and by Aquinas via natural theology do not give the same type of satisfaction as proofs of propositions arrived at by the method of science. To the modern mind they seem contrived. Nevertheless, they were sufficient for Pascal to finally approach his certainty in God's existence by preparing his mind for God's necessity, if the world is to make ultimate sense. After that preparation, he simply could then abandon the God of natural theology and of the philosophers, and could at last will himself to faith by leaping across the abyss, from the edge of reason on this side of the chasm. For those who have experienced this way to God, I would say that God's existence has been proved beyond doubt for them.

Q. Must there necessarily be a conflict between science and religion?In my opinion, no, if it is understood that each treats a different aspect of reality. The Bible is certainly not a

book of science. One does not study it to find the intensities and the wavelengths of the Balmer spectral lines of hydrogen. But neither is science concerned with the ultimate spiritual properties of the world, which are also real.

Science makes explicit the quite incredible natural order, the interconnections at many levels between the laws of physics, the chemical reactions in the biological processes of life, etc. But science can answer only a fixed type of question. It is concerned with the what, when, and how. It does not, and indeed cannot, answer within its method (powerful as that method is), why.

Why is there something instead of nothing? Why do all electrons have the same charge and mass? Why is the design that we see everywhere so truly miraculous? Why are so many processes so deeply interconnected?

But we must admit that those scientists that want to see design will see design. Those that are content in every part of their being to live as materialistic reductionalists (as we must all do as scientists in the laboratory, which is the place of the practice of our craft) will never admit to a mystery of the design they see, always putting off by one step at a time, awaiting a reductionalist explanation for the present unknown. But to take this reductionalist belief to the deepest level and to an indefinite time into the future (and it will always remain indefinite) when "science will know everything" is itself an act of faith which denies that there can be anything unknown to science, even in principle. But things of the spirit are not things of science.

There need be no conflict between science and religion if each appreciates its own boundaries and if each takes seriously the claims of the other. The proven success of science simply cannot be ignored by the church. But neither can the church's claim to explain the world at the very deepest level be dismissed. If God did not exist, science would have to (and indeed has) invent the concept to explain what it is discovering at its core. Abelard's 12th century dictum "Truth cannot be contrary to truth. The findings of reason must agree with the truths of scripture, else the God who gave us both has deceived us with one or the other" still rings true.

If there is no God, nothing makes sense. The atheist's case is based on a deception they wish to play upon themselves that follows already from their initial premise. And if there is a God, he must be true both to science and religion. If it seems not so, then one's hermeneutics (either the pastor's or the scientist's) must wrong.

I believe there is a clear, heavy, and immediate responsibility for the church to understand and to believe in the extraordinary results and claims of science. Its success is simply too evident and visible to ignore. It is likewise incumbent upon scientists to understand that science is incapable, because of the limitations of its method by reason alone, to explain and to understand everything about reality. If the world must simply be understood by a materialistic reductionalist nihilism, it would make no sense at all. For this, Romans 1:19-21 seems profound. And the deeper any scientist pushes his work, the more profound it does indeed become.

Q. Do recent astronomical discoveries have theological significance?I would say not, although the discovery of the expansion of the Universe with its consequences concerning the possibility that astronomers have identified the creation event does put astronomical cosmology close to the type of medieval natural theology that attempted to find God by identifying the first cause. Astronomers may have found the first effect, but not, thereby, necessarily the first cause sought by Anselm and Aquinas.

Nevertheless, there are serious scientific papers discussing events very shortly after the big bang creation (ex nihilo?) out of which all the types of matter that we know (baryons, electrons, photons, etc.) were made, and in what quantities. Even the creation of matter is said now to be understood. Astronomical observations have also suggested that this creation event, signaled by the expansion of the Universe, has happened only once.

The expansion will continue forever, the Universe will not collapse upon itself, and therefore this type of creation will not happen again.

But knowledge of the creation is not knowledge of the creator, nor do any astronomical findings tell us why the event occurred. It is truly supernatural (i.e. outside our understanding of the natural order of things), and by this definition a miracle. But the nature of God is not to be found within any part of these findings of science. For that, one must turn to the scriptures, if indeed an answer is to be had within our finite human understanding.

Q. Can a person be a scientist and also be a Christian?Yes. As I said before, the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle-an architect for believers-a mystery to be solved by science (even as to why) sometime in the indefinite future for materialist reductionalists.

This situation of the complication and the order to function of an organism, where the sum is greater than its parts (i.e. has a higher order), becomes more astonishing every year as the scientific results become more detailed. Because of this, many scientists are now driven to faith by their very work. In the final analysis it is a faith made stronger through the argument by design. I simply do not now believe that the reductionalist philosophy, so necessary to pursue the scientific method and, to repeat, the method which all scientists must master and practice with all their might and skill in their laboratory, can explain everything.

Having, then, been forced via the route of Pascal and Kierkegaard in their need for purpose to come to the edge of the abyss of reason, scientists can, with Anselm "believe in order to understand" what they see, rather than "understand in order to believe." Having willed oneself to faith by jumping to the other side, one can pull, at first, a wee small thread across the abyss, pulling in turn a still more sturdy rope, until finally one can build a bridge that crosses in reverse the chasm that connects the sides of life that are reason and faith. It is, then, by faith that a scientist can become a Christian, and yet remain a scientist-believing in some form of Abelard's dictum.

Without that faith there is no purpose, and without purpose all the arguments for its need drive one once again to build Pascal's bridge.

--------------------------------------OUR “TAILOR MADE” UNIVERSE New Scientific Study Begs the Philosophical Question, "Who's the tailor?"By Nancy R. Pearcey

Pick a universe, any universe. How many hypothetical universes would support life?

Possibly only one, say the authors of a new study. Published in the July issue of Science, the report says that if the physical forces within stars were only slightly different, our universe would be almost devoid of carbon and oxygen, and life would not exist.

The findings bring scientists face to face with the question of design. "I am not a religious person, but I could say this universe is designed very well for the existence of life," said Heinz Oberhummer, astrophysicist at the University of Vienna, Austria.

Mr. Oberhummer and his colleagues used computers to simulate the process by which helium burns to produce carbon and oxygen during the red-giant stage of a star's life. They found that even slight changes in

either the strong or weak nuclear force would destroy nearly all the carbon or oxygen inside stars-making life impossible.

"The basic forces in the universe are tailor-made for the production of ... carbon-based life," Mr. Oberhummer told Space.com.

It's a new day when scientists who are not "religious persons" are compelled to use the language of design. Mr. Oberhummer's discovery adds to the enormous number of "cosmic coincidences" uncovered by cosmology--intricate balances among the universe's fundamental forces. For example, if the force of gravity were only slightly stronger, all stars would be red dwarfs, too cold to support life. If it were slightly weaker, all stars would be blue giants, burning too briefly for life to develop.

In the atom, the mass of the neutron is delicately balanced with that of the proton; otherwise, protons would decay into neutrons, making life impossible.

"Imagine a universe-creating machine, with thousands of dials representing the gravitational constant, the charge on the electron, the mass of the proton, and so on," said Steve Meyer of Whitworth College. "Each dial has many possible settings, and even the slightest change would make a universe where life was impossible." Yet each dial is set to the exact value needed to sustain life-for no known reason.

As Mr. Oberhummer put it, "we have no idea why the strengths of the forces are fine-tuned" to support life. The reasonable answer seems to be that someone intended it that way.

To avoid that surprising conclusion, cosmologists are scrambling to craft alternative explanations. Some adopt the "many worlds" hypothesis, suggesting that there exist an infinite number of universes. Most would be dark and lifeless, but by sheer probability a few might be suitable for life--and we happen to live in one.

How do scientists account for these zillions of universes? Some say mini-universes crowd together within a larger universe like bubbles in foam. Others propose an oscillating universe--continually expanding, collapsing, then expanding again to form new universes with different physical laws. Strangest by far is physicist Hugh Everett's notion that all possible states of a quantum interaction are actualized, so that slightly different versions of our universe are constantly splitting off--creating a near-infinitude of new universes at every moment.

What's the evidence for these other universes? There is none. By definition, they cannot be observed. Nor has anyone offered a plausible scientific explanation for how they arise. "There is no hint as to what causal mechanism would produce such a splitting," complained philosopher John Earman--which renders it akin to a "miracle."

Moreover, the hypothesis violates the principle of simplicity. As Guillermo Gonzalez of the University of Washington told World, "Invoking an infinitude of unobservable universes to explain the one observable universe is a grotesque violation of Occam's razor," the principle that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

Other cosmologists try to explain design by a quasi-pantheistic philosophy that attributes intelligence and foresight to the universe itself. In The Fifth Miracle, Paul Davies says, "the laws of the universe are cunningly contrived to coax life into being"; they "somehow know in advance about life and its vast complexity." This year's Templeton prize-winner, Freeman Dyson, muses that "the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."

Of course, the idea of a conscious universe, or of unknowable universes sprouting like mushrooms, goes beyond science and into philosophy. This opens a new opportunity for Christians, says philosopher William

Lane Craig. "Cosmology has broken down the boundary between physics and metaphysics," he told World. "And once the door is opened to metaphysics, you can't stop the theist from coming in the door, too." If the universe appears "tailor-made" for life, perhaps the simplest explanation is that it was tailor-made. Copyright (c) 2000 Nancy Pearcey, World Magazine. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

PART 2--WHY MACRO-EVOLUTION IS A DOGMATIC, METAPHYSICAL RELIGION by Bryan Bissell

EVOLUTION DEFINITION: In this article, “evolution” will be referring to macro-evolution…the idea that one kind of animal can evolve into a completely different kind of species over millions of years…for example from a cat to a lion or a deer to a giraffe. Micro-evolution, small variations within specific boundaries of a species, has been observed many times and is not disputed by any scientist whether religious or atheist.

The last century has seen many major theories sweep our planet in politics, religion, science, medicine and other areas. One major area of debate in science has been between the theories of evolution and creation, between the theory that life has been created by chance and the idea that life was carefully designed. Throughout history, there have been many times that the majority view has been wrong, but that not many have known it because the majority view controlled the press and information and what was expressed from the official sources. This can easily be proved to be true today in many areas as well. The majority view of any period of history usually tries to exclude views that oppose it.

The polish philosopher Alfred Korzybaski (1879-1950) wrote, "There are two ways to slice easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking."

A lot of people fall into this trap. They either become completely skeptical and doubt everything completely, or they just believe without any evidence and depend completely and solely on faith. Both ways mean they don’t have to honestly evaluate the evidence and problems with their own worldview. Thus these ways of believing are an excuse to avoid honesty and truth. But, as usual, the truth is something that lies between the extremes and takes a lot of trial and error to discover with both sides making lots of mistakes.

In the debate between creation and evolution, it has also happened…many just dismiss religious thought automatically and apriori. Some others dismiss science automatically at the slightest conflict with their own beliefs. But both sides have had to admit that they were wrong (this doesn’t mean that the Bible has so far been proven in error…but many times people’s opinions and theories about it have been.)

But, many of the top scientists in the world, and many with Nobel prizes in science even currently are strong believers in the creation of the world by an intelligent and personal God even though they don’t have all the answers yet. They analyze and investigate carefully trying to figure out the things that they don’t understand. They don’t depend only on science or only on belief. Rather, they try to work with them together. And as they search deeper and deeper into science and the workings of our world, it becomes more and more possible to rationally consider the existence of an intelligent designer who many call God. Here are just 3 examples of top notch Christian scientists in the last century: Pasteur (1822-1895), dean of the faculty of sciences at Lille University, wrote:

"A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to him."

Dr. Wernher von Braun (1912 -1977), NASA director and "father of the American Space Program.""There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator...in the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestation of the Divine plan of the Creator."

“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), p. xi.

and, “It is as difficult for me to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” – Wernher von Braunand."..the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator."

William Phillips, laser physicist and co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light said in a conference at Harvard University:"Being an ordinary scientist and an ordinary Christian seems perfectly natural to me.” He also said, "I'm strongly of the conviction that God is personal, and this is the foundation of my faith."

Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director, United States National Human Genome Research Institute and the vast human genome project, said that “we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God,” His professional reward, he says, comes when he discovers something that "the creator knew ahead of time - that's one of the aspects of my existence I wouldn't trade for anything". lecture at: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~winstan/gfcf/Francis%20Collins.mp3 and BBC article at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/human_genome/753711.stm

There are numerous other scientists that believe very strongly that God created the world and that he is their source of inspiration. People ranging from Sir Isaac Newton to some of the most recent and famous scientists acknowledge that Christianity is extremely compatible with science.

Unfortunately, this is not very well known. And many writings by skeptics make it appear that Christianity is anti-science and destroys science. Here are a couple examples of this: Bertrand Russell once remarked, "I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are

untrue." In his popular and controversial work "Why I Am Not A Christian," Russell leveled the charge that Christianity, in particular, has served as an opponent of all intellectual progress, especially progress in science. (Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), pp. vi, 22-26)

“In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, most religious people act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts. These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They're willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions.. Among atheists, the schizophrenic nature of the religious mind is among the most frustrating and baffling aspects of religion. How can believers continue to have faith in an explanation that has been proven time and time again to be false!?!? Why do human beings not reject organizations that continue to tell them lies!? These are dangerous human beings and more dangerous groups.” From: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/religion_and_science.html

The above quote from the “Ethical Atheist” is typical of how many skeptics regard people of faith. I have read and listened to these and other criticisms from skeptics: Christians ideas are only legends and totally and solely based on faith with no science at all. Evolution has explained the origins of our world accurately and beyond all scientific doubt when such is

far from the case even as admitted by evolutionary scientists. Creation is a fantasy belief for ignorant people.

Christianity is hostile to science and wants to see it destroyed.

Christian scientists don’t publish in respected journals. Christians have no business entering into scientific fields Christianity and creation are not falsifiable and therefore not scientific and many similar things.

Skeptics have been very vocal and have gained control of certain official agencies to promote these distortion of history and attacks on Christians. The technique of ridicule is often used to demean Christians and prevent their views from being heard.

I have experienced all these criticisms in dialogues. I have studied and researched 100s of hours on this topic. And many of the world’s top scientists who are Christians have spent their lives studying science and pioneering new ideas. The tactic of ridicule, which does not even address any scientific issues at all, comes along and throws all this effort away. It is extremely frustrating and unfair. In a sense it is a kind of sophisticated racism…where the eyes of certain people are valid and can discern truth, but the eyes of all others who do not agree with them are discounted without any consideration. It is a very extreme form of censorship that’s being engaged in. The Chinese Paleontologist, Dr. J.Y. Chen, wrote it this way:

"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Hannes Olof Gösta Alfven (Nobel prize for Physics in 1970) wrote in frustration that:"There are an increasing number of observational facts which are difficult to reconcile in the Big-Bang hypothesis. The Big Bang establishment very seldom mentions these, and when non-believers try to draw attention to them, the powerful establishment refuses to discuss them in a fair way...". "Cosmology: Myth or Science?" in Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 5 (1970), p. 1203

This suppression of alternative views has obscured many important facts. The facts are (as can be seen in the lists of scientists at the end sections of this paper) that science was largely invented by religious people and especially Christians to begin with, most branches of science were begun by Christians and that numerous science professors and science leaders worldwide currently are Christians. These facts make the statements of skeptics about science and Christianity being enemies absolutely false and extremely unfair distortions of history and the present.

It is also a fact that Christian scientists often publish in respected journals, but if they write about creation or something religious, even if it’s rigorously testable scientifically, it’s almost always censored and banned from publication just like those who think of alternative theories to the Big Bang (even if not Christian) are censored and usually not allowed much freedom to publish. We never think of our free press being censored, but it is in several areas and especially in reference to creation theories.

Unfortunately, some Christians have reacted to this ridicule with ridicule of their own. This has just hardened each camp in its position and greatly hindered progress and true scientific knowledge. I am trying hard to avoid this because I know and have met many very sincere atheists and evolutionists who want to understand what is true and accurate and follow it. There are many atheists and evolutionists who have contributed important things to science and they are dedicated and want to do good things for human beings. But, They have serious philosophical questions that make belief in God difficult for them and this should be respected and everyone should be allowed the freedom to theorize and try to prove their theories. So, I have much respect for those who search for truth and really try to be objective even if that means giving up a worldview or theory that they have held for a long time. This deserves much respect.

But, at the same time, it cannot help the truth to intentionally distort history and the present which has been done and call Christianity a religion based on fantasy. The truth will eventually come out and much time and money will be wasted in trying to hinder its return.

Again, because of the influence of a few powerful skeptical scientists who “believe” in evolution (and they may be sincere and they should have the freedom to share their theories and opinions), many people today have been duped into believing that science and religion are enemies when in fact they have been and are very good partners. But even Einstein said,

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind”.

Evolution (which is the theory upon which atheism is founded on and without which atheism has no rational explanation for life in this world or its origins) has been widely accepted by some people as a fact even though true science is limited only to what we can see, observe and test through the scientific method. Evolution has never been verified by observation and many scientists know and agree that it is almost totally lacking in observable evidence

In the information below, you will see strong proof that it was because of Christianity that science was able to begin and that throughout it’s history and up to the present, religious people have made many extremely important contributions to science and a more accurate scientific understanding of our world. You will also see some proof from evolutionists themselves and top scientists around the world that evolution depends almost totally on faith itself and has almost no proveable evidence.

But, first I’d like to comment on a couple issues regarding evolution and support it with quotes from leading scientists with quite incredible credentials to show that this is not just an opinion of a few ignorant people.

HAS EVOLUTION BEEN PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY?Most people think that evolution has been proved already. Such is far from true. Except for the first quote, all of the quotes below are from evolutionists which adds very significant weight to what they say:

DR. ARTHUR E. WILDER-SMITHAn honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates, the late Dr. Wilder-Smith held many distinguished positions. A former evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of the Universe (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Communications and Standard Media, 1983).

Dr George Wald - 1967 Nobel Laureate in Medicine"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation orspontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore we choose to believe the impossible:that life arose spontaneously by chance." Dr George Wald. Quoted in "The Collapse of Evolution", Scott M. Huse, Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:3

”One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Ibid.

PROFESSOR JEROME LEJEUNE (from a lecture in Paris on March 17, 1985)

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannotaccept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theoryknown as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, butbecause there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact ....."

Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London)"One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this [evolution] stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me ....."

"[The] question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school"." Part of a keynote address given at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981.

The Limitations of Science (J. W. N. Sullivan, New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933, p. 94.) Former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma of most evolutionists.

“The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.”

Luther D. Sunderland,“Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled, are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They’ve discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries.” Luther D. Sunderland, “Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems” (4th ed.), Master Books: Santee (California), 1988 p:7-8

Dr T.N. Tahmisian - physiologist (The Atomic Energy Commission, USA)"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

Quoted by N.J. Mitchell in the book "Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes", Roydon Pub: UK, 1983 [title page]

WOLFGAGN SMITH "The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious belief or biblical persuasion, but on strictly scientific ground.”(from "Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin", Tan Books & Pub. Inc: Rockford (USA), 1988 p:1)

IS EVOLUTION EVEN FALSIFIABLE?Karl Popper popularized the idea that for something to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. If it’s not falsifiable, then it can’t be labeled scientific. This has been trumpeted near and far by most skeptics in their criticism of Christians. They have not trumpeted so widely these 2 facts:

1) ALL scientific theories are based on at least a few assumptions. This is a basic axiom and it is impossible to avoid making some assumptions. Assumptions are the scientific word for faith in something that you can’t prove. For example, there is no way that we can prove that our senses are accurate, because we can only use our senses to prove things..thus it is impossible to check. We have to believe that they are accurate totally on faith. There are many other examples like this.

2) Karl Popper before he died wrote this:"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme ....." Karl Popper in his autobiography "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography", Fontana Books, 1976

This and the other quotes listed mean ironically, that evolution is almost completely a religion. The scientists who have criticized people of faith, are now forced to depend even more strongly on faith than the people they criticized. The irony is just too much.

SCIENCE USES FAITH AND IS OFTEN NOT OBJECTIVEAnother seminal thinker in science was Thomas Kuhn. Thomas Kuhn in his groundbreaking book “Scientific Revolutions” exploded the myth that science is objective and proved with many examples that scientists are just as subjective as anyone else and that normal science sets definite limits and boundaries on “truth” and will not easily accept or allow research into anything outside of those boundaries. There may be hot debates within these lines and that’s quite acceptable. But, go outside the boundaries and your opinions will not be printed in the accepted press or professional journals, your lectures will be banned, you risk loss of grants and scholarships, and you may be risking your career. There are many cases of people losing their jobs and money and information being suppressed because it did not meet the accepted standard of evolution.

Rupert Sheldrake summarizes this problem of objectivity brilliantly in his 1994 book “Illusions of Objectivity”:

Scientists generally feel the need to preserve an idealized self-image, not just for personal and professional reasons, hut also because this image is projected on to them by others. There are many people who put their faith in science rather than religion, and need to believe in its superior, objective authority. And to the extent that science replaces religion as the source of truth and values, then scientists become a kind of priesthood. As with priests in general, there is then a public expectation that they will live up to the ideals they preach: in the case of scientists, objectivity, rationality and the quest for truth. Some scientists, in their public appearances, can be noticed playing up to this role, which seems to invest them as cardinals of reason propounding salvation to

an irrational public. There is also a strong disincentive for them to admit that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the beliefs and institutions that legitimize their own position. While it is relatively easy to admit that individuals may err, and to purify the community by expelling them, it is much harder to question the beliefs and idealizations on which the whole system depends.

James Clerk Maxwell, one of the top 3 theoretical physicists of all time, was about as objective as you can get in a scientist…but he knew that science was continually changing and thus was not the most credible source of truth. He wrote:

The rate of change of scientific hypotheses is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical interpretation. So if an interpretation is founded on such a hypothesis it may help to keep the hypothesis above ground long after it ought to be buried and forgotten.

The fact is that all worldviews use some faith, evolutionists, creationists and all scientists. Oliver Wendell Holmes said it succinctly,

"Science has sometimes been said to be opposed to faith and inconsistent with it. But all science in fact rests on a basis of faith, for it assumes the permanence and uniformity of natural laws.”

Two quotations on the limits of science are also instructive. "Science proves nothing absolutely. On the most vital questions, it does not even produce evidence." Vannevar Bush, past Chairman of the Board of MIT

"It has become increasingly evident in our century that science is uncertain in its very nature.... Indeed one thing of which scientists can be quite certain is that they will not achieve a complete solution of any worthwhile problem." George Gaylord Simpson, Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Harvard

“Absolute truth belongs only to one class of humans—the class of absolute fools.” These are the piercing words of Ashley Montagu, famous evolutionist/humanist of Princeton University

EVOLUTION IS THE FOUNDATION PHILOSOPHY FOR MASSACRESuppressing the truth is a horrible enough by itself. But the results of evolution go far far beyond that. Evolution has been the philosophical foundation for nazism and communism (neither of these could have survived very well without evolution and the social application of the theory in eugenics). Communism and nazism together have caused the deaths of over 100 million lives in the last century alone. Only one organization in history can compare to that…and that is the Catholic church of the middle ages which burned and tortured millions. Some people say it was Christian, but the reason it killed most of these people was because they wanted to read the Bible in their own language and worship God according to their conscience. They murdered conservatively about 50 million people in a period of over 1000 years according to historians. But evolution and communism and nazism destroyed that record in just 1 century.

Evolution may not have directly causes massacres, but without it, many of these philosophies wouldn’t have been rationally persuasive. The Jewish scholar Edward Simon wrote,

“I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible"

You can read a lot more about this at: http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/, esp. the sections on nuremburg…and you can also see that Darwin sanctioned and approved of massacres of inferior peoples even while he was alive in the sections on his trip to Galapagos and back (see the 2nd chapter).

The tragedy is that evolution is almost completely built on lies and propaganda and suppression of other viewpoints. Words like “assassination of truth” and “murder of integrity” do not adequately convey or do justice to the vast deception that has resulted in the loss of over 100 million lives in 1 century.

But, again I must emphasize that there are many people, even scientists, who are not aware of these things and honestly believe in evolution and that it is rational. Many of them are good and some volunteer to help our world in different ways. They also are victims of this hoax and as time goes by it will become more obvious and hopefully they will have the scientific integrity to admit that evolution does not match with the scientific knowledge that we possess.

ARE CHRISTIANS SCIENTIFIC?In an oral essay on National Public Radio, Joseph Loconte pointed out that:

“too many skeptics have forgotten the massive historical debt they owe to the Jewish and Christian belief in an orderly cosmos. They cast religion as the enemy of science and progress, when in fact it was the religious [biblical] worldview that helped launch the scientific revolution over three centuries ago.”

Below the articles that are next is a list of many of the great Christians and religious people who invented and pioneered most of the areas of science in history and to this day contribute a large number of discoveries and innovations to scientific knowledge. Their religious beliefs are almost never allowed to be printed in scientific journals and if they make discoveries in areas that prove creation, these also are seldom if ever allowed to be disseminated through the main scientific organizations which have suppressed most information relating to these areas. But, times are changing and many top evolutionists are looking for another answer besides Darwinian evolution…many refuse to even consider creation as a scientific evidence…even though it has vast and testable scientific evidence….but hopefully that will change as well…read the information below and I hope that you will understand the vast deception that has riddled scientific circles for the last few decades…but to which some scientists are now waking up to…

WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION?How much can religion and science share then? Galileo in his debate with the Catholic church on whether the earth or the sun (ironically the church was defending the views of Aristotle, NOT the Bible) was the center of the solar system said:

"The Holy Scriptures are intended to teach men how to go to heaven, not how theheavens go."

Many others agree with this sentiment. The Bible is not a book on science and science is not a book on theology. They do have significant intersections in certain areas that are testable…but they usually have different focuses both of which are very important and valid.

St. Augustine wrote in the 5th Century about the limits of theology:"We must be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far-fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to ridicule of unbelievers."

Another person wrote:"Science is a fallible human interpretation of the observable universe while theology is a fallible human interpretation of the Scriptures."

And Martin Luther King wrote:“Science investigates, religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power, religion gives man wisdom which is control.”

Both scientists and theologians need to understand and use the "two book" model that goes back at least to Cardinal Baronius of Galileo’s time which says that the Bible reveals God’s words while nature reveals God’s works. In other words again: The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

Just before Einstein died, he said, "I believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual. But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I can't. You know them to be true but you could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap."

Science and theology are meant to be complements, not combatants. Science gives theology perspective while theology gives science meaning. It is time that everyone starts understanding this and gives both religion and science respect and allows them to complement and inform the other. Using these 2 legs of truth, we can discover much to benefit our world. With either leg amputated or neglected, we lose out on much of our understanding of our world and our purpose in it. There is no better way to summarize it than by again quoting Einstein:

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind”. I hope that as our investigation of the world continues that the scientists will stop being lame and the religious people will recognize the truth of Galileo’s words even more than they do now:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -Galileo Galilei

Let’s continue our search for the truth in all areas of life and knowledge and do it with the knowledge that we are human and our knowledge is limited. Let us respect those who hold different beliefs, but be willing to listen and think carefully about critiques of our viewpoints and theories. Arrogance will not help us at all. It is respect and humility and dedication that will bring progress much faster than we have yet seen.

Best wishes and God’s blessing to all who sincerely strive towards truth in whatever area that may be,

Bryan

PART 3: GREAT SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE

CHRISTIAN NOBEL NOMINEES/WINNERS

These are just some of the winners of the Nobel prize that were listed as Christians or religious and were easy to find. It is by no means a comprehensive list.

Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Christian, Nobel Laureate (Physics) for his discovery of the Compton effect which provided the final confirmation of the validity of Planck's quantum hypothesis."It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'"

Charles Hard Townes, Christian, Nobel prize winner in physics for fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics"The question of science seems to be unanswered if we explore from science alone. Thus I believe there is a need for some metaphysical or religious explanation. I believe in the concept of God an in his existence." “To me, God is personal yet omnipresent - a great source of strength Who has made an enormous difference to me."

Arthur Leonard Schawlow, Christian, Nobel prize winner and professor from Stanford University for his contribution to the development of laser spectroscopy."We are fortunate to have the Bible which tells us so much about God in widely accessible terms." When commenting about the universe and wonders of life he stated "The only possible answers are religious.....I find a need for God in the universe and in my life."

Alan Sandage, Christian, the world's greatest observational cosmologist from the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution, won a prize given by Swedish parliament equivalent to Nobel prize (there is no Nobel prize for cosmology) and became a Christian after being a scientist. "The nature of God is not found in any part of science, for that we must turn to the scriptures."  He also writes that the Big Bang can only be understood as "a miracle." In a lecture by Fritz Shafer from a website by Leadership University: http://www.leaderu.com/realri9501/bingbang2.html

Sir Ernest Chain, Christian (?), Co-holder of the 1945 Noble Prize for developing penicillin "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutation seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.     These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

…"I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts." quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985), pp.

147-148

William Phillips, Christian, co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light, Works for the US National Institute of Standards and Technology"I said something like, 'There are many people I want to thank, and I'd also like to thank God for giving us such a wonderful and interesting universe to explore."

The churchgoing physicist addressed a conference at Harvard University:"Being an ordinary scientist and an ordinary Christian seems perfectly natural to me…For others, however, it appears strange, even astonishing, that someone could be serious about science and about faith.""Einstein's god, who is really just the laws of nature, is not for me," he said. "I'm strongly of the conviction that God is personal, and this is the foundation of my faith."http://www.deepscience.com/philosophy/faith%20and%20science.html

ELIE WIESEL, winner of nobel peace prize in 1986, Chairman of 'The President's Commission on the Holocaust'. Author, humanitarian.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. winner of the Nobel peace prize in 1964, leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, campaigner for civil rights.”Science investigates, religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power, religion gives man wisdom which is control.”  Martin Luther King, Jr.

ALBERT SCHWEITZER , winner of the Nobel peace prize in 1952, Missionary surgeon, Founder Lambaréné Hospital in République du Gabon, and protestor against nuclear power abuses.

Elias James Corey (Chemistry 1990), Peter Brian Medawar (Medicine 1960) and Ferid Moura (Medicine 1998) are Christian Nobel Prize winners.

Amartya Sen, Christian, Nobel prize in economics

Melvin Alonzo Cook, Christian, physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)

Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer is a five-time Nobel Prize nominee and world-renowned chemist and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. Henry F. Schaefer III received his B.S. degree in chemical physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1966) and Ph.D. degree in chemical physics from Stanford University (1969). For 18 years (1969-1987) he served as a professor of chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley. Since 1987 Dr. Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. His other academic appointments include Professeur d'Echange at the University of Paris (1977), Gastprofessur at the Eidgenossische Technische Hochshule (ETH), Zurich (1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002), and David P. Craig Visiting Professor at the Australian National University (1999). He is the author of more than 900 scientific publications, the majority appearing in the Journal of Chemical Physics or the Journal of the American Chemical Society and has made presentations or given lectures at most major universities in North America, including Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, as well as many internationally. He said, "It is very rare that a physical scientists is truly an atheist." In an interview with U.S. News & World Report, Schaefer said, "The significance and joy in my science comes in...discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!'" My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.His biosketch is at: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/biosketch.html

articles by him are at: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/

Martin Rees "The possibility of life as we know it depends upon a few basic values which are constants. And it is in some aspect remarkably sensitive to their heir numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences."

Linus Pauling, 2 time Nobel prize winner in Chemistry and Peace was a member of the Unitarian church (but believed more in naturalistic religion). He won the prize for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the elucidation of the structure of complex substances.

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, 1970 Nobel prize in literature, studied communism for 50 years and wrote that the cause of 60 million people dying under communism was because “people forgot God”.

Jimmy Carter in 2002, winner of the Nobel peace prize for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.

Kim Dae Jung, winner of the Nobel peace prize in 2000 for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular.

Mother Teresa in 1979,Leader of the Order of the Missionaries of Charity. Desmond Tutu in 1984, Bishop of Johannesburg, former Secretary General South African Council

of Churches (S.A.C.C.) for his work against apartheid. Woodrow Wilson, winner of Nobel Peace prize in 1919 for creating the league of nations. Theodore Roosevelt, winner of Nobel peace prize in 1906, drew up the 1905 peace treaty between

Russia and Japan ??Max Perutz, with a Nobel prize in chemistry

PRESTIGIOUS CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS IN HISTORY Here is a list of branches of science that were started by Christians and pioneering Christians in science and includes at the end a list of some who are teaching and researching at the highest levels currently.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD. *Bishop Robert Grosseteste,* a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar *Roger Bacon.* Both PREDICTED that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge--a result which followed. Bacon especially ennumerated the results, which included submarines and flying machines.

PHYSICS. It is almost impossible to list the Christians active in the history of physics. A short list would include *Philoponus,* *Bradwardine,* possibly *Buridan,* *Galileo,* and *Newton,* the Mertonians, *Grosseteste,* *Faraday,* *Maxwell,* *Thompson (Kelvin),* *Tait,* and more.

Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest, proposed the Big Bang theory. Abbé Georges Lemaître, was both an astrophysicist and a Jesuit priest and the first scientist to promote a big bang creation event.( “A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-Galactic Nebulae,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91 (1931): 483-90.)

THERMODYNAMICS. *James Joule,* and *Lord Kelvin* are two famous names associated with the development of thermodynamics. Both were Christians, Kelvin more openly so.

GEOLOGY. *Nels Steno,* who became a Roman Catholic bishop (and preached to people in their own language rather than Latin so they could understand the gospel) drew up the first, simple laws of geological study. He is usually named the Father of Geology. Many other Christians made major contributions to the science of geology.

ROCKETRY & SPACE: Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)"There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator...in the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestation of the Divine plan of the Creator." Dr. Wernher von Braun (1912 -1977), NASA director and "father of the American Space Program."

“Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?” Wernher von Braun (probably the rocket scientist most responsible for the United States’ success in placing men on the Moon) from a letter written by Dr. Wernher von Braun and read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford on 14 September 1972.

“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), p. xi.

VACCINATION. The most famous champion of vaccination was a Christian doctor, *Edward Jenner,* who did his work against fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself. In effect he wiped out smallpox from among the diseases that terrify mankind. He died from a cold caught carrying firewood to an impoverished woman.

ANESTHESIOLOGY. *Crawford Long,* one of the three Americans who discovered anesthesia became a Christian. *James Young Simpson,* who championed its use in Britain was also a professing Christian, an ardent New Presbyterian.

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY. First championed by the Quaker doctor *Joseph Lister* against tremendous opposition, antiseptic surgery was based directly on the theories of *Louis Pasteur.* Antiseptic surgery sought to kill germs, primarily by the use of carbolic acid.

Pasteur (1822-1895), dean of the faculty of sciences at Lille University, wrote: "A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to him." Louis Pasteur

BACTERIOLOGY. Bacteria were first observed by the Reformed Dutchman *Anton von Leeuwenhoek* and were received with considerable skepticism.

COMPUTER SCIENCE. Several Christians had important roles in the development of the computer. *Blaise Pascal* built the first workable computing machine. It was too cumbersome to be cost effective. Charles Babbage helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine.

CRYOLOGY. *Lord Kelvin,* a professor who opened each class with prayer and an apologist for creationist ideas, did fundamental work which led to ice-making machines."Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion." -Lord Kelvin.

STATISTICAL MECHANICS. The American Congregationalist *Josiah Willard Gibbs* and the French Catholic *Pierre Duhem* were two Christians whose work led to an understanding of the thermodynamics of and equilibrium in chemical systems.

WAVE THEORY OF LIGHT. *Thomas Young,* a Quaker, was the first to perform a double slit experiment and to show that light acted as a wave. The French Protestant *Augustin-Jean Fresnel* confirmed and mathematized Young's findings.

FIELD THEORY. *Michael Faraday* first envisioned field theory. Having little mathematics, he was forced to rely on imagination to describe what he saw. He belonged to a small Baptist group. Faith, humility and love governed his life.

EXPANDING UNIVERSE. The Belgian priest *Georges Lemaitre* first gave us a viable mathematics for an expanding universe. His PREDICTION that the universe could not be stable was soon proven by Hubble and others. *Sir Arthur Eddington* championed Lemaitre's theories in a book called The Expanding Universe. Eddington was a Quaker who said that the believer found arguments for the non-existence of God to be quaint.

ENCYCLOPEDIA, SCIENTIFIC. The first scientific encyclopedia featuring the characteristics we accept--contributed articles, pictures, alphabetical entries--was prepared by a minister, *John Harris." Earlier encyclopedias with scientific and medical content had been compiled by Christians, including *Cassiodorus,* *Hildegarde,* *Isidore of Seville,* *Rhabanus Maurus,* the Dominican *Vincent of Beauvois,* *Johann Heinrich Alsted,* whom Cotton Mather called "the doorway to the sciences," etc.

OPTICS. *George Berkeley,* idealist philosopher and Christian bishop, showed how images form upside down in the eye.

RELATIVITY THEORY. Einstein built his theory of relativity on the work of three men, two of whom were Christians. The first of these Christians was *Bernhard Riemann* who had developed the mathematics of Riemannian Space, which Einstein found could explain the curvature of space. The other was *James Clerk Maxwell* whose equations and work with pre-quantum physics led directly to modern physics. Einstein's work was to some measure forced by the famous Michelson-Morely measurements of the speed of light which showed that the speed of light is an absolute. Einstein sought and found the explanation. *Edward William Morley* was the Christian half of that experimental duo. Einstein was not a Christian, but he was convinced by science of the reality of a higher power/creator/God.

Galileo Galilei: 1564-1642 Italian Physicist "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Johannes Kepler: 1571-1630 German Astronomer, The 3 laws of planetary motion. Advanced Copernicus' heliocentric theory,"Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."

Blaise Pascal: 1623-1662 French Mathemetician, "There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ." (Pensees)?

Newton Isaac: 1642-1727 (born Dec 25) wrote a million words of theology.The solar system itself could not have been produced by blind chance or fortuitous causes but only by a cause "very well skilled in mechanics and geometry."

Robert Boyle is called by some the Father of Chemistry. His science sprang directly from his faith. All of his writings show the imprint of Christianity. As a young man, newly converted to Christ, he struggled with faith because the science of the day contained so much which was contrary to his belief. He therefore determined that every fact must be clearly established and tested, in which case he felt certain that it would prove compatible with scripture since both had the same author.

John Dalton, a Quaker, gave us the atomic theory behind chemistry.

Michael Faraday: 1791-1869 English Chemist, Discovered Benzene, electromagnetic induction, lines of force, relationship between polarized light and magnetic fields. Strong believer in the literal interpretation of Scripture. Deacon and elder in his church."Since peace is alone in the gift of God; and since it is He who gives it, why should we be afraid? His unspeakable gift in His beloved Son is the ground of no doubtful hope."

George Washington Carver, with his work on peanuts and sweet potatoes was a great pioneer in Chemurgy (the branch of chemistry which focuses on the industrial use of organic materials). His faith has been well-documented.

John Ambrose Fleming, who leaned to the evangelical wing of the Church of England, was not only a Christian, but a first-rate pioneer in electronics, inventor of various items, including a "bridge" and electron tubes which were essential to the development of the field.

Gregor Mendel, a Roman Catholic priest and abbott, first discovered the laws of genetics with his now famous studies of the garden pea. His work lay in obscurity for many years before being rediscovered. Mendel did not accept Darwin's theory, because his own discoveries in genetics showed that creatures tend to revert to kind.

Nels Steno who became a Roman Catholic bishop (and preached to people in their own language rather than Latin so they could understand the gospel) drew up the first, simple laws of geological study. He is usually named the Father of Geology. Many other Christians made major contributions to the science of geology. The minister *Adam Sedgewick* discovered and named the Cambrian.

Louis Agassiz was a prominent voice in promulgating ice-age theory, which he convincingly proved. By his comparison of fossil fish and studies of living fish, he was one of the great founders of icthyology. He was strongly creationist in his views. He was strongly creationist.

Louis Pasteur,* a Christian, developed the germ theory of disease and CLAIMED that microbes transmit many diseases. This claim has been thoroughly proven. The doctor who first applied Pasteur's theories to the operating room was the Quaker Joseph Lister.

James Young Simpson* is but one of several Christian doctors who made significant advances in gynecology.

FAMOUS CHRISTIAN/JEWISH CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS CURRENTLY Michael Polanyi, held the chair in physical chemistry and social sciences at Manchester University,

was one of the 20th century’s great scientific philosophers, and disturbed the ivied halls of academia by declaring in 1958: “The book of Genesis and its great pictorial illustrations, like the frescoes of

Michelangelo, remain a far more intelligent account of the nature and origin of the universe than the representation of the world as a chance collocation of atoms.”

John Suppe, noted professor of geology at Princeton University and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

OWEN GINGERICH, Professor of Astronomy and History of Science, Harvard University, MassachusettsIn his lecture, "Dare a Scientist Believe in Design?" he explains why he believes that a scientist can contribute effectively while holding a belief in a purposefully designed universe.

”For me the goal is to achieve a coherent understanding of a universe that includes self-consciousness and self-contemplative beings - an understanding that is far from complete, yet one in which we do not merely analyze the sound waves but in which we can also hear the music. There are still great unanswered questions, of eschatology and theodicy, but a consistent view of the universe can include both the personal God who has communicated to humankind as well as the superintelligent Creator of an astonishingly fine-tuned and fit physical universe. Through the eyes of faith, physics tells us something after all about the Creator of the universe.” from Science & Christian Belief Vol. 13, No 1, April 2000

Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania in his book Darwin's Black Box, explains that the complexity of the chemical activity at a molecular level, even in the functioning of one part of the body, such as the eye, points to intelligent design rather than evolution.

Dr. Walter L. Bradley, Professor of Engineering at Baylor University, He has received two teaching awards, one national and five local research awards, and from 1989-1993 served as the head of the department. He has received over $3,000,000 in research grants and contracts resulting in the publication of 80+ technical articles. He has been honored for his technical contributions by being elected a Fellow of the American Society for Materials.”The design requirements for our universe are like a chain of 1000 links. If any link breaks, we do not have a less optimal universe for life -- we have a universe incapable of sustaining life! The evidence I have present is daunting, but still short of "proof". I must conclude that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in an accidental universe than to believe in an intelligent creator, or God who crafted such a marvelous universe and beautiful place of habitation in planet Earth, and then created life (including human beings) to occupy it”. from the article “Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe”

D. Russell Humphreys, Award-winning physicist, involved in physics research and development in geophysics, optics, nuclear physics, high energy physics, electricity, magnetism, and theoretical physics, B.S. in Physics from Duke University, Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University (dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions), Former researcher at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico starting in 1979 -- in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project, Helped design particle accelerators used in fusion energy and Strategic Defense research, Co-inventor of laser-triggered "Rimfire" high-voltage switches, much more online at: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/humphreys-dr.html

Albert Einstein-said (not a Christian, but a believer in an intelligent designer), when commenting about the universe: "God doesn't play dice", and he also said "the harmony of natural law...reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of

human beings is an utterly-insignificant reflection." ... Albert Einstein, The World As I See It, (1974), Bonanza Books, New York, page 40.

Albert Einstein believed there was no inseparable contradictions between God and science, as reported in an essay he wrote Religion and Science: Irreconcilable? Christian Unitarian Register 127, (June, 1948) pages 19, 20.

Dr. Francis Collins is the director of the U.S. Human Genome Project. Richard Bube (1927-) was the chairman of the Department of Materials Science at Stanford

University for many years and currently teaches a second year undergraduate course at Stanford entitled "Issues in Science and Christianity”.

Gerald L. Schroeder holds a Ph.D. in applied physics from MIT. He wrote “Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible.”

Dr. Nathan Aviezer is author of the book "In the Beginning" . He received his doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, and held a research position at the IBM Watson REsearch Center, New York. He now lives in Israel where he joined Bar-Ilan University as Professor of Physics and Chairman of the Physics Department. He is a fellow in the American Physical Society.

Martin Rees at Cambridge: "The possibility of life as we know it depends upon a few basic values which are constants. And it is in some aspect remarkably sensitive to their heir numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences."

John Pokingham, theoretical physicist at Cambridge, left physics to become a minister. "I believe that God exists and has made himself known in Jesus Christ."

U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory.

Phillip Johnson has been a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, for 26 years. He received his B.A. from Harvard and his J.D. from the University of Chicago. Johnson is the author of Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance, and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.

George T. Javor, Ph.D. in biochemistry from Columbia University, New York, U.S.A., B.S. in chemistry from Brown University, Author of over 40 technical papers and abstracts, Professor of Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, California

C. Everett Koop, Former Surgeon General of the United States of America, Former editor of The Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Recipient of at least 8 honorary degrees stemming from his surgical expertise, Member of more than a dozen medical societies worldwide, Former president of the Surgical section of the American Academy of Pediatric Surgery, Former Professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

UCLA Berkeley Professor Phillip Johnson-considers the weakness of evolution's scientific standing, where "an honest appraisal of the evidence would sweep evolution convincingly into the dustbin of history".

Dr. Hugh Ross earned his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto and researched galaxies and quasars at the California Institute of Technology.

Leonid Korochkin, Professor of Genetics at Yale University, Head of the molecular biology laboratory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and Steve Austin, from the Institute for Creation Research

Patrick Glynn, Ph.D. Harvard University, former special assistant to the director of arms control in the Reagan Administration and once a confirmed philosophical atheist, believes the Universe was programmed toward the creation of life. His book:-God, The Evidence

Dr. Ben Carson, one of the top neurosurgeons in the world.

Dr. Denis Alexander, head of the T-Cell Laboratory in the Dept. of Immunology, The Babraham Institute, Cambridge

Raul E. Lopez, Ph.D. and M.S. in atmospheric science from Colorado State University, B.S. in physics and math from the University of Puerto Rico, Author of over 45 papers and over 90 conference papers and technical reports

Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. in kinesiology from the University of Iowa (1958), Former professor of biomechanics and physiology at California State University (1968-1994), Professor Emeritus at California State University (1994-Present)

Charles McCombs, Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry, UCLA, 20 chemical patents over 21 years

Andrew McIntosh, D.Sc. in mathematics from the University of Wales (1998), Ph.D. in the theory of combustion from the Cranfield Institute of Technology (1981), Author of over 80 research papers, Contributor to 10 textbooks dealing with combustion theory

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. and M.S. from the University of Minnesota (1950, 1948), Former faculty member at Rice University (1942-46), University of Minnesota (1946-51), University of Southwestern Louisiana (1951-56) and Southern Illinois University (1956-57), Former head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (1957-1970)

Gary E. Parker, Creationist (former Evolutionist professor and textbook author), Ed.D. from Ball State University in biology with a cognate in geology and paleontology

Ariel A. Roth (SDA), Ph.D. and M.S. in biology from the University of Michigan, U.S.A., Former professor of biology and chairman, Loma Linda University, California, U.S.A., Former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda

Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney

Timothy G. Standish (SDA), Ph.D. in environmental biology and public policy from George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, U.S.A.

Stephen Taylor, Ph.D. and M.Eng. in electrical engineering from the University of Liverpool, author of over 80 scientific articles, Reviewer for the journals IEE Electronic Letters, Solid State Electronics, Journal of Applied Physics and Applied Physics Letters, Senior lecturer in electrical engineering at the University of Liverpool

Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D. in Chemistry from Iowa State University, Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University (2 years), history and philosophy of science

Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology in the Department of Geosciences in the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and has been a member of the National Academy of Sciences since 1983. Professor Margulis says that history will judge neo Darwinism as "a minor twentieth century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo Saxon (English nationality or descent) biology"

Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Cape Town, B.S. (hons) cum laude and M.S. in zoology from the University of Stellenbosch, Professor and chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Western Cape, South Africa

Jeremy L. Walter, M.S. and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Pennsylvania State University, U.S.A., National Science Foundation Fellowship recipient (1975), Head of the Engineering Analysis and Design Department, Applied Research Laboratory (Energy Science and Power Systems Division), Pennsylvania State University

Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith, Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941), Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich, D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964), F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry), Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc., Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford, Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages, NATO three-star general, deceased

Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. and M.A. in geology from Harvard University, B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago, Former student of Professor Stephen Jay Gould

Danny R. Faulkner, Ph.D. and M.A. in Astronomy, Indiana University, M.S. in Physics from Clemson University, Published more than two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals

Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

Steven A. Austin, Geologist, Ph.D. from Pennsylvania State University, Consulting geologist for government and industry, Author of numerous papers including publication in the peer-reviewed journal International Geology Review

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc. from Hardin-Simmons University (1950), Former research physicist at Duke University (1942-45), M.S. degree from Brown University (1936) while studying under the famous physicist R.B. Lindsay, Director of many important research projects on terrestrial magnetism and atmospheric physics, Published various scientific papers and textbooks, Member of

the Editorial Board of the Creation Research Society Quarterly

Edward A. Boudreaux , Ph.D. and M.S. in chemistry from Tulane University, Author or co-author of four technical books regarding inorganic chemistry, Author of numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers, Professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of New Orleans, Louisiana

Arthur V. Chadwick (SDA), Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from University of Miami (1969), Professor of Biology and Geology at Southwestern Adventist College, Keene, Texas

Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. in Theoretical Nuclear Physics from Oklahoma State University, Post-doctoral studies at the Institute for Applied Nuclear Physics in Karlsruhe, Germany, Professor of Physics at Bluefield College

John M. Cimbala, Ph.D. and M.S. in aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology, U.S.A., Author of numerous research papers regarding fluid dynamics, Visiting senior research scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center, Recipient of the George W. Atherton Award for Excellence in Teaching, Pennsylvania State University, 1997, Professor of mechanical engineering, Pennsylvania State University

Ben Clausen (SDA?), Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Colorado at Boulder, Research scientist at the Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, California

Melvin Alonzo Cook, Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Yale University (1937), Nobel Prize nominee (Nitro Nobel Gold Medalist, Swedish Academy, Stockholm (1969), Professor of Metallurgy at the University of Utah (1947-70), E.V. Murphree Gold Medalist Award, American Chemical Society (1968), Loomis Award from Yale University (1937)

Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D. and M.A. in biology from Harvard University (1965, 1959)

Donald B. DeYoung, Physicist, specializing in solid-state and nuclear science, as well as astronomy, Ph.D. in physics from Iowa State University, Published articles in The Journal of Chemistry and Physics of Solids, The Journal of Chemical Physics, and Creation Research Society Quarterly

Dwain L. Ford (SDA), Ph.D. in chemistry from Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, U.S.A., Recipient of three National Science Foundation fellowships, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, Andrews University

Robert V. Gentry, M.S. in Physics from University of Florida, Often considered the world's foremost authority on radiohalos, Former Guest Scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Atomic Energy Commission, Published scientific papers in Nature, Science, Applied Physics Letters, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, etc.

Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. in Biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley (1953), B.S. in chemistry from U.C.L.A. (1949)

D.B. Gower, Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of London, Royal Society of Chemistry fellow, Institute of Biology fellow, Emeritus professor of steroid biochemistry at the University of London, U.K.

Stephen Grocott, Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry from the University of Western Australia, B.S. (honors) in chemistry from the University of Western Australia, Author of 30 research papers, Holds

4 patents, Elected fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute

Edmond W. Holroyd, Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the University of New York at Albany, Research physical scientist from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado

"At this point the war centering around Darwinism and its control over the scientific discussion of origins is going well for the creationists, and evolution is being defeated in many battles." -Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 12.

"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate." -Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.

Stephen M. Barr is Associate Professor of Physics at the Bartol Institute, University of Delaware.

PART 4--EVOLUTIONIST AND AGNOSTIC EXPERT QUOTES AGAINST EVOLUTIONMany more like this are at: www.evolutionisdead.com Karl Popper

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme ....." Karl Popper in his autobiography "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography", Fontana Books, 1976

Dr George Wald - winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize for Science.When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." Dr George Wald. Quoted in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:3

Dr T.N. Tahmisian - physiologist (The Atomic Energy Commission, USA).(12) "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." T.N. Tahmisian. Quoted by N.J. Mitchell in the book "Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes", Roydon Pub: UK, 1983 [title page]

Dr Albert Fleischmann - (University of Erlangen, Germany)(16) "I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." -Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

“...contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach." -Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 353, 354. (Note: Dr. Denton is neither a creationist nor a Christian.)

Professor Louis Bounoure - former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director (Strasbourg Zoological Museum), Director of Research (French National Centre of Scientific Research). "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Louis Bounoure, quoted in The Advocate, Thursday March 8, 1984 p:17

Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.

"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." Francis Crick, [Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.] Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88. (Back to top)

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.

“It was a shock to the people of the 19th century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.” Michael J. Behe, “Molecular Machines,” Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998, p. 35.

“One could argue at this point that such ‘minor’ changes [microevolution], extrapolated over millions of years, could result in macroevolutionary change. But the observational evidence will not support this

argument ... [examples given] Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy—especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability], not transformation. ... For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change.” Michael Thomas, “Stasis Considered,” Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.” Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” Behe, p. 186.

“While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (ms) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.” John K. Stevens, “Reverse Engineering the Brain,” Byte, April 1985, p. 287

“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?” Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.

The human brain itself serves, in some sense, a proof of concept [that cool petaFLOPS machines are possible]. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power. That’s a hard act to follow. Ivars Peterson, “PetaCrunchers: Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing,” Science News, Vol. 147, 15 April 1995, p. 235

“The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 1015 or a thousand million million. ... a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.” Denton, pp. 330 – 331

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr.,

Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16

“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution].” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, p. 210

“Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294

“... human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.” Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 59

“Norm Chomsky ... has firmly established his point that grammar, and in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved ... Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have come into being all at once.” John Maddox, “The Price of Language?” Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1977, p. 424.

H. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), "Origins of Species", in Letters, New Scientist Magazine, May 14, '81, page 452-"Darwin's book – Origin of Species – I find quite unsatisfactory. It says nothing about the origin or species. It is written very tentatively, with a special chapter on "Difficulties On Theory" and it includes a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record"... As a scientist, I am not happy with these ideas. But I find it distasteful for scientists to reject a theory because it does not fit in with their preconceived ideas."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology {teaches biology, geology and history of science}, Harvard University –deceased May, 2002), "Is A New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, page 127-"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for 'gradualistic' accounts of evolution."

Stephen Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University) in Time Magazine-said "No scientific theory including evolution can pose a threat to religion."

In a speech in October 1983:-As reported in "John Lofton’s Journal"-The Washington Times, February 8, 1984."-We’re not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes we’re not evolving. There’s no reason to think we’re going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever—we are what we are."

Dr. Ernst Chain - Nobel Prize winning biochemist.Ernst Chain, who helped develop penicillin, in 1972, has called the theory of evolution, "a very feeble attempt to understand the development of life." He is also on record as saying "I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable God cannot be explained away by such naïve thoughts."[Ernst B. Chain, as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148 (emphasis added).]

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance

mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."-Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945).

"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero." -Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937).

"It's such a deeply ingrained faith, such a strong dogma on which we are all raised from an early age. Interestingly, I've read a number of biographies of scientists who are leaders in both creationist and evolutionary thought. The overwhelming trend is that the leaders of evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary theory. They are 'specialists in evolution' and there is no way that you could see how someone whose entire life and reputation and livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it. On the other hand, the leaders of the creationist movement usually have made a name for themselves in some area of fundamental and applied science -- real science -- before moving into creation science." -Kouznetsov, in Dr. Carl Wieland, "Interview with Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov," Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 36.

“Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish. ...It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction. ...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process...After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. ...If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back....Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended hereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake in science." -I.L. Cohen, in Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities

Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, developer of the Steady State Theory), as quoted in Hoyle on Evolution; Nature, vol. 294, Nov. 12, '81, page 105-"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (Professor of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics at University College, Cardiff), "Convergence to God", in-Evolution from Space, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1981, pp. 141 and 144.

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule (small, tiny) as to make the random concept-absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. ....It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences to our left, even to the extreme idealized limit of 'God'."

George C. Williams, The Pony Fish's Glow, (1997), Basic Books, New York, N.Y, chapter 7, page 125-"Evolution never designed anything from scratch. It can only tinker with whatever happens to be already there..."

Mae Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, English evolutionary biologists. Beyond Neo-Darwinism-–-An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution, M.W. Ho and P.T. Saunders, 1979, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 78, 589-"...the success of the theory of evolution is limited to the minutiae (relatively unimportant details) of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of the moths (since revealed to be a hoax used to 'prove' evolution) while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interests us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place?"

Professor Richard Goldschmidt, a geneticist at the University of California at Berkeley, listed a series of complex structures from the hair of mammals to hemoglobin that he thought could not have been produced by the thousands of years of small mutations. As Goldschmidt put it "To suppose that such a random event could reconstruct even a single complex organ like a liver or kidney is about as reasonable as to suppose that an improved watch can be designed by throwing an old one against the wall." "The many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed." ... The Material Basis of Evolution (1940), New Haven: Yale University Press, page 395.

Ernst Mayer, evolutionist declares "there is no evidence for the gradual emergence of any evolutionary novelty (something new) by the accumulation of small adaptive modifications."

Douglas Dewar, a British naturalist and former evolutionist "Paleontology cannot be regarded other than a hostile witness against evolution. It is not possible to draw up a pedigree showing the descent of any species living or extinct from an ancestor belonging to a different order. The earliest known fossils of each class and order are not half made or half developed forms, but exhibit fully developed, the essential characteristic of their class order. It is not possible to arrange a genealogical (the study of descent from an ancestor) series of fossils proving that any series has in the past undergone sufficient change to transform it into another member of another family. All the changes proved by fossils are within the limits of the family."

"These days William Murray has little in common with his mother. He is a Christian, an evangelist, and would greatly like to see creation science taught alongside evolution in public schools. 'I think it's imperative that it is, because kids are being taught some kind of theory that changes every 10 years. I was taught in school one type of evolution, now the children are being taught another type. Creation science has much more credibility.'"

"She does not know the Bible. She knows certain quotes that she's mostly taken out of context. But what she did was to pick up literature - for instance a book called Contradictions in the Bible, which has been in print since last century - and learn certain Scripture passages that are supposed to be contradictory." [He said that the Scriptures were not contradictory when you looked at them in context, and put them in the proper timeframe.]

-Pastor William J. Murray, son of famous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, in Doolan, Robert, "My Mother: The Most Hated Woman in America!" Creation Ex Nihilo, Volume 15, No. 2, p. 36-7

For example, we have many types of dogs, but they are all dogs, all of the "dog family", all after their kind (Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind. And God saw that it was good."). No fossil record exists showing even slight change into an elephant, giraffe, cheetah, etc., or vice versa.

Many more quotes on evolution by scientists from all backgrounds are here: http://www.christiankeys.ca/Creation6f.html and http://www.evolutionisdead.com

PART 5—CASE STUDIES OF PROPAGANDA FROM SCIENTISTSBy Bryan Bissell

Science has brought us incredible achievements and learning in many areas. It is something to give our utmost respect and to appreciate it’s accomplishments. But, people don’t realize that many scientists are far from objective and engage in their own fantasies and ridicule opponents positions that are at least as scientific as their own and some far more so. So, it’s very important to allow debate of many different sides of theories which have scientific evidence and also to allow for the possibility that some ideas are beyond the ability of science to predict. In addition, scientists have been wrong numerous times in the past in proclaiming native people’s wrong when the natives were speaking about animals that they had witnessed themselves. Gorillas, Pandas, Komodo dragons and many other animals were all declared figments of imagination by respected scientists. With time though, these figments were acknowledged to be the real creatures that they actually are. There are some areas of investigation where scientists are the last ones to understand and realize the truth. Therefore, we need to have a healthy skepticism about the prevailing views. Often with in a few years or decades, the prevailing view is proven wrong…but some errors take much longer to expose, especially those founded on a priori beliefs.

Here are two examples of propaganda from evolution scientists and there are many other similar ones that we need to be wary of (as well as some from the creationist scientists too). Both evolutionists and creationists are human beings and make mistakes. But, if we are true scientists, both must be required to found their evidence on solid, OBSERVABLE science.

PROPAGANDA EXAMPLE #1: Evolutionists Say Canyons Can’t Form in a Short Time, BUT They Do! See detailed scientific explanation on page 3)

In an article in the Nov. 17, 2004 issue of Time magazine, Leon Jaroff, a well known science writer wrote an article, “Faith based Parks” This article included a lot of propaganda and slander showing that propaganda can be anywhere…even in Time magazine. Here’s an excerpt:

At a park called Dinosaur Adventure Land, run by creationists near Pensacola, Florida, visitors are informed that man coexisted with dinosaurs. This fantasy accommodates the creationists’ view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that Darwin’s theory of evolution is false. Among the park exhibits is…a long trough filled with sand and fitted at one end with a water spigot…When visitors open the spigot, the water quickly cuts a gully through the sand, supposedly demonstrating how the Grand Canyon was created, practically overnight, by Noah’s flood {evolutionists believe that a river over millions of years created the canyon}. That’s nonsense, of course, but what else would you expect at a creationist park?…The creationists have demonstrated again that they are scientifically illiterate, and out of step with the 21st century. (full article is below on page)

What does science really say about this? Are the creationists really full of “nonsense” or should both views be considered? Remember, to be scientific, it must be observed. If it hasn’t been observed, then it’s faith. Maybe possible, but still faith. Has anyone seen a canyon formed in a short time? Yes! Let’s go to Walla Walla, Washington (where Bryan went to university).

Burlingame canyon is 450 m (1,500 ft) long, up to 35 m (120 ft) deep, and up to 35 m (120 ft) wide, winding through a hillside.

In 1904, a series of irrigation canals was constructed to provide water to this rather arid high desert area. In March 1926, winds collected tumbleweeds blocked the flow of water along one of the canals. The engineers diverted the flow into a diversion ditch leading to nearby Pine Creek. The ditch had been a maximum of 3 m (10 ft) deep and 1.8 m (6 ft) wide, and often with no water in it at all. The sudden cascade of waterfall became a waterfall. Suddenly, the ground gave way and began to quickly erode. The small ditch became a gully. The gully became a

gulch. The gulch became a miniature Grand Canyon. In total, these six days of runaway ditch erosion removed around 150,000 m3 (five million cubic ft) of silt, sand and rock.

Yes, canyons can form rapidly. A good maxim to remember is, ‘It either takes a little water and a long time, or a lot of water and a short time.’ But then, we’ve never seen a canyon form slowly with just a little water. Whenever scientific observations are made, it’s a lot of water and a short time.

Albert W. Mehlert, paleoanthropology researcher, wrote in "Diluviology & Uniformitarian Geology -- A Review" that, "A week's study of the Grand Canyon should be a good cure for evolutionary geologists as it is a perfect example of Flood geology with its paraconformities and striking parallelisms of the under strata. The whole area was obviously laid down quickly, then uplifted and then the whole sedimentary area split open like a rotten watermelon."

One of the most basic scientific proofs is to make a prediction and then investigate to see if your prediction is accurate. If it is, that’s quite strong (but not conclusive) proof that your theory is accurate.

Dr. Walter Brown (an engineer who received his Ph.D from MIT) made an interesting prediction. He said that if the grand canyon was formed quickly, in the past there would have been a huge amount of water in lakes above the canyon…in 1 or 2 lakes. He did many calculations to find these ancient lakes (and found local legends that also agreed with this theory). Then he traveled to the area and found evidence of where these ancient lakes had been. This is scientific confirmation that this theory is very possible (although we still can’t say 100% that it did happen this way because we didn’t see it). ( see “A Canyon in 6 Days” at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/canyon.asp, See Dr. Brown’s detailed explanation at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon3.html. You can read the story of how it happened at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia27.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia28.html, and http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia29.html Also highly recommend his hydroplate theory at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview.html

Other good sites: www.creationscience.com, www.kacr.or.kr (Korean), http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html and other sites for more information like this).

PROPAGANDA EXAMPLE #2: Evolutionists and Creationists Claim to Know the Age of the Earth—But, Both Are Only Guessing

DATING THE EARTHIn dating the earth, a similar problem happens. Evolutionists say the earth is millions of years old. Most Christian traditions say that the world is about ~10,000 years old (the Bible says nothing specific about this though). What does science show us?

Enewetak coral reef is one of the largest reefs in the world. It’s about 1,405 meters thick. Evolutionists say that this proves the world is millions of years old and many have ridiculed anyone who believes this reef could be formed in a short time. But, here is the real scientific data.

FACT: The Enewetak reef is about 1405 m thick

FACT: Observed growth rates range from .5cm (=5mm/year) to 414mm/year with many in the 100-200mm range. 1405m = 1,405,000mm

5mm/year rate =281,000 years estimated coral age50mm/year rate =28,100 years estimated coral age100mm/year rate =14,050 years estimated coral age200mm/year rate =7,025 years estimated coral age300mm/year rate =4,683 years estimated coral age414mm/year rate =3,393 years estimated coral age

These are ONLY the observed rates. There may be faster and slower rates that haven’t been observed. In 1992, this coral in the picture at right was found on a shoe that was less than 4 years old. This shows that coral growth can sometimes be extremely fast.

Which rate happened at Enewetak? Nobody has been watching and measuring the Ewenetak coral reef for 1000s of years, so we don’t know. Science can only say what might have happened. Skeptics choose the 5mm rate. Creationists choose the 200-400 rates. Both are using a lot of faith. It does seem logical to match the fast rates with the thickest corals on the planet, but this is just a logical guess. Both creationists and evolutionists are using an enormous amount of faith whenever they proclaim that they know the age of the earth from science. Since it’s not possible to recreate or observe creation or the big bang, from science you can not prove either theory in a compelling way from science.

Here are some other links showing that decay rates can be billions of times faster than most evolutionary scientists admit:A new RATE project by many scientists...proves that decay rates in the past can be billions of times faster than currentlyhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n2_ratingradiodating.asp

Pictures of those planes found in 250 feet of ice in only 50 years (showing that the famous ice cores are not necessarily millions of years old) are at:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/233.asp Why is this important? There are many good scientists on both sides of these issues—both creationist and evolutionist. But, evolution can be dangerous especially with communism. How can a scientific theory be dangerous? Evolution says that man is the highest power. It says that “survival of the fittest” is the law of nature and best way to live. This means that the strongest can do anything they want. If there is no God, then people who have power don’t worry about what is right or wrong. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Nietzsche and others believed and followed this. They didn’t worry about being held responsible for their actions. They were all inspired by Darwin and evolution and this is the result of following its principles.1. MAO TSE TUNG: 85% of Chinese couldn’t read when Mao came to power. Mao started the

“Each One Teach One” idea. Every person taught 1 other person to read. Then that person taught 1 more person. In a few short years 85% of the Chinese could read. Mao chose Darwin’s writings for reading practice. Mao’s China killed over 30 million people.

2. NAZIS/HITLER: Hitler followed Darwinism’s ideas. Sir Arthur Keith, a British evolutionist wrote: "The German Fuhrer…is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." Evolution & Ethics, p. 28.

Hitler killed lesser races so tall, blonde 'Aryans' could be the new Supermen. (This is Social Darwinism.) Hitler said, ‘Close your heart to pity. Act brutally.’

Himmler said Nazis ‘value people racially’ and ‘bodily’, like in ‘animal breeding.’ They must ignore ‘the Christian theory... which ruled Germany for more than a thousand years and caused… racial decay….’(Padfield, Himmler, pp164-8)

3. JOSEPH STALIN: Joseph Stalin (1879–1953) was studying to be a pastor. He read Darwin’s books. A friend later wrote that when Stalin read Darwin he became an atheist. Stalin followed Darwin’s ideas and tried to implement them in Russia. He became one of the the worst mass-murderers in history. With no belief in God or a judgement, Stalin had no morals. He killed 35,000,000 people.

These people and others believed they could create a “super race” by killing other people who were “inferior” to them. What did Darwin write that caused such terrible things to happen?

Darwin himself wrote: “At some future period… the civilized races of man will… exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” In 1830, Tasmania - Whites killed almost all aborigines. Darwin approved! He said: “This most cruel step seems to have been quite unavoidable” and now Tasmania “enjoys the great advantage of being free from a native population” (The Voyage of the Beagle, pp 430,424 and The Descent of Man). See more at: http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/ (esp. the “Darwin at Nuremburg” sections).

The Jewish scholar Edward Simon wrote, “I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."

Because it was a major philosophical idea of these and other political leaders, Darwin’s theory was a causal factor in the deaths of over 100,000,000 in the 20th century (especially when combined with communism which also rejected God).

Be careful and watch out for propaganda. It exists in many places and at times it can be dangerous to our lives. Be aware and ask questions about what people tell you. It just may save someone’s life!

OTHER QUOTES "...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of rocket science.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX ever."Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist. Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, title page

Don't Teach This in High Schools! "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?' I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school'."Dr. Colin Patterson,Senior Palaeontologist. British Museum of Natural History, London. Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5

Rarity of Transitional Forms "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.… Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."Professor Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb, 1980, pp.179-181.

Fossil Record of Plants

"Much evidence can be advanced in favour of the theory of evolution – from biology, biogeography and paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."E.J.H. Corner,Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Quadrangle Books, p. 97

Split Open Like A Rotten Watermelon "A week's study of the Grand Canyon should be a good cure for Evolutionary geologists as it is a perfect example of Flood geology with its paraconformities and striking parallelisms of the under strata. The whole area was obviously laid down quickly, then uplifted and then the whole sedimentary area split open like a rotten watermelon."Albert W. Mehlert, Paleoanthropology researcher "Diluviology & Uniformitarian Geology -- A Review"

From a Frog to a Prince "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."Prof. Louis Bounoure,President Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research. The Advocate, p. 17

Beautiful Family Tree "The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts."Prof N. Heribert Nilsson,Lund University, Sweden. Famous botanist and evolutionist Synthetische Artbildung. Verlag CWE Gleerup Press

Black Matter and Silly Putty "Take black matter, for example. As fate would have it, the most recent and popular theories in physics just don't work. It's not as if there are some loose threads around the edges; the theories don't work at all. If they did, the universe would instantaneously fall in on itself or fly apart. Now those of us who are not astrophysicists would probably do something like discard the theories. Not astrophysicists. They readjust the uncooperative universe to fit their theories, postulating a gigantic quantity of invisible gravity-producing stuff they call black matter, even though it's not black and maybe not even matter. And there you are. Just like that, the modern, popular theories are back in business. I can imagine that readers new to physics and its way of doing things might be skeptical, but those of us who are higher up in the world of science feel nothing but anticipation in all this theorizing. It could, after all, be a step toward a newer and even sillier putty."Roger L. Welsch,"Astrophys Ed", Natural History, February 1994, p. 25

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.          In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am

compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter." John Haldane,Professor of Genetics, London University

EXTRA STUFF TO ADD

CREATION/EVOLUTION DEBATE Dr. Walter L. Bradley, Professor of Engineering at Baylor University”The design requirements for our universe are like a chain of 1000 links. If any link breaks, we do not have a less optimal universe for life -- we have a universe incapable of sustaining life! The evidence I have present is daunting, but still short of "proof". I must conclude that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in an accidental universe than to believe in an intelligent creator, or God who crafted such a marvelous universe and beautiful place of habitation in planet Earth, and then created life (including human beings) to occupy it”. from the article “Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe”

---------------------------------------------------------What is Science? What are it’s limitations?---------------------------------------------------------What is science? Basically these are 2 things that verify that something is scientific:

A) Science studies things that can be tested or redone and verified. Karl Popper wrote about the concept of falsifiability. If it can’t be falsified, then it’s not science. Almost all scientists agree with him.

B) Scientific theories make predictions that can be verified and checked out.

It is a fact that all scientific theories depend on certain faith and assumptions that can’t be proved:1) We can understand our universe 2) Our senses are accurate 3) The universe is rational and so we can study it and understand itand others

So, in this discussion of creation and evolution, the evidence will be judged on things that can be tested and observed and seen or at least things that make accurate predictions that have come true. These are the best ways we can check and decide if it’s true or not…

LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE1) Dr. Scott Peck wrote that science often says that if you can’t measure something, it doesn’t exist. But, we know many things that we can’t measure but they exist. So, science is mostly limited to things it can measure and exist. Just before Einstein died, he said,

"I believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual. But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I can't. You know them to be true but you could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap."

Alfred Korzybaski (1879-1950) a Polish philosopher wrote"There are two ways to slice easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking."

Doubting everything or believing everything means you don’t have to think very hard or very carefully. They also mean that you’ll make a lot of mistakes. So, science is very good at understanding things that can be measured and tested and that can make predictions. But, this is only one part of life and there are many others.

Again as Einstein said,“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind”.

---------------------------------------------------------What is the issue? Why is it important?---------------------------------------------------------

Dr George Wald - 1967 Nobel Laureate in Medicine"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation orspontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore we choose to believe the impossible:that life arose spontaneously by chance." Dr George Wald. Quoted in "The Collapse of Evolution", Scott M. Huse, Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:3

”One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Ibid.

Why is it important?

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

William B. Provine,Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning

in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.See also: http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/ (esp. the nuremburg chapters)

"The driving force behind Darwin's theory of origins was blatant racism, not science. Remember, the evidence that Darwin was a racist is easily discovered, he did not hide it. It can be seen in the subtitle selected for his 'The Origin of Species'. The words he chose to describe his effort were: 'The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life'. That should be enough for anyone. Darwin was out to prove the superiority of the white race over the black. That goal was at the core of his stated thesis! He had an agenda, and that agenda was not scientific."

  Mike Carrier,(MA, NYU--Graduate School of Arts and Science)

Scientific Arguments for Racism "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."Stephen Jay Gould,'Ontogeny and Phylogeny', Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

And millions of people have died under communism which is based on evolution.

Stalin was a theology major, but changed to become an atheist because of Darwin. He later was responsible for the murder of 30 million people.

============