Nothing new under the sun

And Moses said to Aaron, “What did this people do to you that you have brought such a great sin upon them?” And Aaron said, “Let not the anger of my lord burn hot. You know the people, that they are set on evil. For they said to me, ‘Make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ So I said to them, ‘Let any who have gold take it off.’ So they gave it to me, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf.” 

Exodus 32

It's not modern and it's not scientific. The proposition that the right ingredients and blind chance alone are responsible for any form of life is one of the oldest expressions of idolatry.

Rate of Change

It's been a while since I have blogged about evolution or faith and science. But this article in New Scientist has provoked me again.

The debate between evolutionists and creationists often goes nowhere, in my opinion. The Darwinists' understanding of the science is often much better and the creationists' arguments are often embarrassingly poorly constructed and as such are easily torn to pieces. However it would be a logical fallacy to assume that the more educated opinion is always correct. History has proved this to be wrong within the scientific community countless times. Copernicus's theory of a helio-centric solar system was considered poorly constructed and logically flawed by his scientific peers, and many dismissed his ideas as a result - but he was right.

Rather than get drawn into the details, that both sides are expert at shouting down, lets take a step back, and examine the big picture in simple terms.

The world is full of a diversity of life. The question is how did this diversity arise. Let's take the analogy of a bathtub full of water representing all the biodiversity on the planet. The creationist says, "God filled the tub." The evolutionist says, "The tap is running."

There then ensues an argument about the nature of the tap (which the Darwinist understands far better) and whether any water (biodiversity) is really flowing into the tub (through the process of evolution).

But there is one other important fact, which is beyond dispute by either side. The plug is out on this tub. Extinctions are irreversibly reducing the biodiversity of the planet all the time. A recent newspaper article I read suggested that as many as 11 species disappear each year. With many thousands more on the critically endangered list. (Indeed evolutionary theory relies on extinction to provide the steering hand of evolution - Natural Selection).

So let's side-step all the arguments about whether the tap is running or not, and ask a more fundamental question. Even if the tap is running; is it running sufficiently fast to explain a full tub with the plug out?

This is just a matter of empirical data. If the initial state of the bath-tub was empty, as the Darwinists propose, then the average rate of "speciation" must exceed the average rate of extinction. Or the bath tub would stay empty. The mind-bending periods of time (8.3 billion years) don't help here either, because if the car is not going forwards it doesn't matter how long it drives for, it is never going to get anywhere!

The plain and simple fact is that even taking what scientists propose to be recent speciation events (usually at least several thousand years ago) they don't add up to anywhere near 11 a year. The tub is getting more empty, not more full. Not great news for the initially-empty-bath-tub-theory.

Perhaps the rate of extinction was not so high in the past? Well here the evidence is to the contrary too, with several well documented periods of mass-extinction or elevated extinction rates. According to Berkley's information, of all the life that has ever existed on this planet, over 99% has become extinct.

The only option left for the empty-tubbers is that the tap must have been running faster in the past than it is now. In other words it relies on conditions and processes that cannot be tested and verified in the laboratory today. Hardly the irrefutable proof, that no-one could seriously disbelieve.

People often criticise creation(ism) as being unscientific. Yes, it is. It doesn't (or shouldn't) pretend to be otherwise. But unless you are an atheist, and disbelieve that anything miraculous can happen, this doesn't automatically make it untrue.

Equally, hard evidence for mutations, genetic drift, microevolutionary changes within a species, and the process of natural selection do not mean that Darwin's theory on the origin of the species is correct.

The tub is full, yet it is draining faster than it is filling (if it is filling at all). Does this suggest that the tub was initially full or empty?

The truth about the LHC

The LHC (Large Hadron Collider) is a giant particle accelerator, the largest in the world; a 17 mile long circular tube buried about 100m underneath the French/Swiss border designed to fire subatomic particles at each other very fast and detect what comes out of the wreckage.

Bottom line is that it is a big physics experiment, pure and simple. A very important one, for sure, but that is all it is. However there has been much misinformation and nonsense circulating the internet about the LHC and some unhelpful misrepresentation in the media which as probably fuelled it. Here are a list of some of the claims circulating about the LHC and why they are not true.

1 - The LHC is the "Big Bang Experiment"
This is a misrepresentation in the media, particularly it has to be said, the BBC! The implications, whether intended or otherwise, are that the LHC proves or will prove the Big Bang Theory - this is not true. What they actually mean is that the conditions generated in the LHC collisions may be a close approximation to the theoretical conditions very soon after the Big Bang as predicted by that theory.

However even this is a misrepresentation, because the LHC is all about experimental particle physics, whereas the Big Bang theory is a speculative theory of cosmology. The link is very tenuous, and is about the amount of energy created. The logic is as follows - In the Big Bang (if it happened!) all the energy in the universe was in a very small place at one time - the LHC will create a very large amount of enery in a very small space at one time - therefore the LHC is like the Big Bang! It is silly and unhelpful journalism. It would be like me running a bath and hailing it as the "Atlantis Experiment" because it will recreate the conditions immediately below the surface of the waters above the lost city of Atlantis!

2 - The LHC is looking for God
This is not true. The LHC is not trying to prove or disprove God. It's a science experiment. It's main purpose is to try and establish one of the predictions of the Standard Model of particle physics. This model predicts a hitherto undiscovered particle that is needed to give other elementary particles mass: the Higgs Boson.

Although this particle is sometimes referred to as the "God particle" proof of its existence or non existence says nothing about the existence of God himself. In fact the name has nothing to do with theology or divinity, but is a contraction and a euphemism of the "Godd*mn particle" - because it has proven so hard to track down.

3 - The LHC is wasting money to find something that can be discovered by reading Genesis 1
I do wish Christians wouldn't say things like this. Science is science - faith is faith. They tell us different things about different subjects in different ways. I believe Genesis chapter one, but I don't read anything in there about the Higgs Boson. The LHC is an important and valuable science experiment, and since points 1 and 2 above are not true there is absolutely no reason for Christians to give this kind of knee-jerk reaction to it.

4 - The LHC could create a black hole that will destroy the world
This is scaremongering at its worst. Scientists know that collisions of similar energy to the LHC happen all the time in the Earth's upper atmosphere as cosmic rays collide with the particles there. (Incidentally this also rubbishes the BBC's claim that the LHC will recreate conditions not in existence since the Big Bang)

Even if a black hole did form, it would not be the all consuming monster we know from astronomy. These would be subatomic in size, and so governed primarily by quantum theory. This predicts (in a theory put forward by Steven Hawkins) that the particle-antiparticle fluctuations around the event horizon of the black hole would lead to a net flow of anti-matter into the black hole and a net flow of matter away from it. The result being it would "evaporate" - very fast. If you don't understand any of that, don't worry, just rest assured that the LHC is not going to cause the world to end!

The "Conan Doyle" Principle

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
~ The Sign of Four, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The creator of the greatest fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes, came up with this great observation on deductive reasoning: examine all the explanations, then eliminate those which could not have happened until only one remains.

There is nothing wrong with the logic in this statement. Detectives still talk about eliminating people from their enquiries, and my son even has a game "Guess Who?" which works on the same principle.

However there is more to this statement, and it is very telling. It shows people will be prepared to believe something that is totally improbable and full of inconsistencies if they consider it to be the only option on the table. It also shows that what people end up believing goes hand in hand with what they are not prepared to believe. Although some explanations will be eliminated through observation and reasoning - some are never even considered because they are deemed impossible from the outset.

Your assumptions on what is possible determines your worldview, and your worldview determines your belief. It doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you are presented with, if you filter that evidence though you presuppositions you will never be presented with anything that challenges your belief.

Take the darwinian theory of evolution. It doesn't matter how improbable it is, or how many unexplained stages it involves, to those who have written of anything supernatural as impossible, the fact that we are here is the only proof they need to claim that it must be true.

It is said "seeing is believing" but the "Conan Doyle" principle shows that this is often not the case. You might think that all that is required to convince someone who disbelieves in the miraculous is for them to witness a miracle, but in practice it doesn't work like that. If someone holds firm to their belief that the supernatural is impossible they will reinterpret the evidence to an alternative explanation no matter how improbable that might be. In the Gospel accounts, when Jesus presented a man born blind who could now see, there were many who preferred to believe that Jesus had found another healthy man who looked identical to the blind man, than accept that a miracle had occurred.

You see in cases like these seeing is not believing. Compelling evidence alone is not enough to persuade. What is required is a change of worldview that allows people to reach a correct conclusion from the evidence. Without this they will go away just as sceptical as when they arrived.

The ancient Greeks had a word for this change of worldview: metaknoia. It means literally to change your mind. Not to change you mind about something, but as if you had exchanged your mind - radically changing the way you think about something.

Interestingly, this is the word that gets translated as "repent" in the Bible, and was the first word used by both Jesus and John the Baptist in their message about the coming kingdom of God. "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand." Change your assumptions about what is possible, because if you don't you will not be able to receive anything that follows.

Science and the supernatural

Let's examine the claim: Any valid explanation of the universe must be scientific.

This is an increasingly common argument, and is at the root of the evolution vs. creation debate. The proponents of darwinian evolution seem to think that all they need to do is point out that any account of creation is not scientific and thus can be dismissed out of hand. (There are those who try to dress up the creation account with science - but that's another matter). The root of the issue is, is it valid to say that there are not, nor have their ever been any miracluous/supernatural events and so everything in the universe can be explained by science alone?

It could obviously be pointed out that such a statement is intrinsicly atheistic, and so is at odds with the beliefs of many of the greatest scientists of all time: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein... but let's examine this statement with logic alone...

Let's assume for the moment that they are right. And that there is nothing supernatural - not now - not ever. This means that, as they claim, everything that happens must happen for a well defined scientific reason. It may be a reason that scientists do not yet understand, it may be for reasons that are so complicated that they cannot in practice be unravelled, but they are all natural, and within the remit of scientific investigation. Every physical effect has a physical cause and nothing outside of the universe itself is needed by way of an explanation. It sounds like athiestm... because it is - and it has become a very prevalent world view in modern science. But is it consistent?

If every physical effect has a physical cause, then those causes themselves must be effects of prior physical causes - as we are not permitted to entertain any other source of influence. We can think of all the events in the universe like chains of dominoes streching back in time. Each domino falls over because another domino topples into it - cause, effect, cause, effect. Although in practice dominoes may fall over without another domino, this would be caused by gravity and possibly floor vibrations and thus in our analogy would represent another well defined domino/cause. What we are not allowed now, nor at any point in the past, is a domino that falls over without a prior domino - as this would represent an effect without a cause - an event that is not explainable by science - a supernatural event.

Such a world view makes sense, if like Einstein, you believe that the Universe is eternally pre-existent. But no-one believes that any more - even Einstein was convinced by the evidence that the Universe had a beginning.

If the Universe had a beginning, then we run into problems with our domino chains - we can extrapolate them back further and further into the past and so defer the problem, but sooner or later we have to face the inevitable. There must have been a first domino! This is exactly what we have said cannot happen: a cause that does not depend on anything prior for its existence. Something that is outwith the remit of science!

So if believing that "everything can be explained by science" leads you inescapably to acknowledge that there is at least one event that cannot be explained by science then it proves that the original assumption is untenable. There are some things about the universe that cannot be explained by science. The Universe itself is proof of the supernatural.

Those who try to dismiss men of faith as irrational are themselves holding to an irrational worldview!

On monkeys, typewriters and the second law of thermodynamics

The darwinian theory of evolution suggests that if you give enough monkeys enough typewriters for enough time they will eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare. In other words: order can come from disorder given a large enough random data sample and a sufficient passage of time.

However this breaks one of the golden rules of physics: The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Given the same set of initial conditions the second law predicts that all you will get is a whole load of broken typewriters, ripped paper and monkey poo... and the longer you wait the worse it will get.

A new kind of intolerant fundamentalism

These are strange days we live in! It seems it is OK for scientists such as Professor Hawkings to doubt the existence of the Higgs Boson - and so call into question one of the predictions of the standard model of Quantum Field Theory - one of the best proven scientific theories of all time. And yet when another scientist even suggests that alternatives to the Darwinist theory of evolution, a theory with many holes and unresolved problems, is something which could, when appropriate, be discussed in the classroom - he is forced to resign!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7028639.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7619670.stm

It shows that there is a rise of a new form of intolerant fundamentalism in this country. One that rejects and seeks to oppress all alternative views, refuses to debate, and puts forward it's belief as unquestionable dogma. I'm not talking about the creationists - it's fundamentalist atheism.

If Darwin's theory on the origin of the species cannot be questioned in the same way as every other scientific theory then it no longer has the right to call itself science. It has become the very thing it despises and seeks to destroy: fundamentalist dogma.

How old is the Earth?

This is not a new posting, nor a question that I ever set out to try and answer. Nevertheless an interesting discussion on this topic has developed on my previous posting "Darwinism on CBeebies".

If you have an opinion, or any insight, please join in the discussion there.

Darwinism on CBeebies

I was watching CBeebies (a children's digital TV channel from the BBC) with my four-year-old son yesterday. The program was "Mama Mirabelle’s Home Movies", which is a great show that mixes cartoon characters with real life footage from the animal kingdom in a fun and educational way.

In this particular episode the characters find a fossilised dinosaur footprint. This was great for my son, who like most boys his age, loves dinosaurs. The show was excellent, right up to the last minute, where the wise "Mama" elephant explains how dinosaurs evolved into birds and so "the descendants of dinosaurs are still around today".

It seems that the BBC considers Darwinism a suitable topic to slip into children's programs!

I don't see any great conspiracy here, most people just assume evolution to be true without giving it much thought. But it is a shame, that evolution is presented so often as an unquestionable fact, when its foundation in proven science is so flimsy. This only serves to perpetuate the myth. If "the descendants of dinosaurs are still around today", then they didn't become extinct! Extinction kinda excludes living descendants does it not!?

Anyway, at this point I looked at my wife and we both rolled our eyes. But before we thought of what to say to Michael, he chirps up with, "That's not right!"

That's ma boy!

On Darwinism, Creationism and Petitions

There has been a recent petition and counter petition to the Prime Minister that has brought the issues of Creationism and Darwinism to the fore again.

Those who are familiar with this blog will know that I have posted on the topic of faith and science and Darwinism in particular several times. Check my archives under "faith and science" if you want to see what I have had to say.

In this particular case I have not signed the petition. Not because I don't have strong feelings on the subject of faith or science - as a Christian with a first-class honours degree in Physics, I care about both - but because the petition is primarily about faith schools. Something I am ambivalent about. It is people who have faith, not institutions. I did not attend a faith school, and I don't know much in the way for or against that would persuade me to petition the Prime Minister about them. People should have the freedom to make up their own minds on scientific theories and the claims of Jesus Christ, regardless of what type of school they attend.

The original petition, despite its emotive wording and obvious atheistic bent, basically said that creationism should not be taught as science in schools. This may come as a shock to some, but I actually agree with that statement!

Don't get me wrong. I believe absolutely that the Universe was created in a literal seven days by the one true living God as revealed in the pages of the Bible. But I believe this not because of any scientific theories I have studied, or which school I attended, but on the basis of my own personal faith in Jesus and in the authority of the word of God.

Simple logic dictates that if the Genesis account is true, then the act of creation was a miraculous act by the hand of God himself. It can no more be explained by science than how Jesus rose from the dead, walked on the water, or turned water into wine. To attempt to come up with scientific explanations for the miraculous acts of the divine hand is both foolish and futile.

Faith and science are not enemies, but they are distinct. Faith should be taught as faith, and science as science. They are not mutually exclusive. When did you last hear the argument that Shakespeare should not be taught at school because it is not scientific? The Genesis account does not need to be scientific to be true. Nor does it need any scientific bolstering to make it more acceptable. It stands on its own merit.

The opposite side of the scale is where the problem with Darwinism lies. I don't have any problem with evolution being taught in schools. Indeed how can you argue against what you are ignorant about? There is much good science bundled up with Darwin's speculative nonsense about the Origin of the Species. Where the problem lies is when it is presented not as theory but as unquestionable fact. It then crosses the line from science into dogma.

Having said all that the counter-petition is worded well, and is careful to promote the teaching of creation rather than creationism. But it doesn't change the fact that both these petitions are primarily about faith schools, and concerns about them setting their own scientific curriculum. If you care deeply about faith schools then by all means sign the petition, but if you don't then don't feel obliged to respond in a knee-jerk way. Save your energies for the real battle.

"Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. But the Lord of hosts, him you shall honour as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread." (Isa 8:12-13)

The fire in the equation

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.

~ Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.


Following from yesterday's post, I thought of this quote from Steven Hawking, that I really like. For it is not just the undeniable order in the Universe that the atheist cannot get round, but the fact that there is a Universe at all! I read A Brief History of Time when it came out, back in the late '80s and really appreciated the irony in this quote. Here was a man who had tried his hardest to provide a consistent scientific model for the Universe that removed any need for a creator. He set off to find the Grand Unification Theory, the equation for everything, the one equation to rule them all - yet he discovered in one rare moment of clarity towards the end of the book, that even if man was to ever reach the top of this ladder, he would suddenly have nowhere left to go.

Any scientific theory can only explain what is already there to be explained; it cannot by force of its own logic and reason cause things to work that way. Many scientists forget this fact: the workings of the Universe are not governed by the laws of science, it is the laws of science that are governed by the workings of the Universe. As such, to try to explain scientifically how or why there is a Universe at all is like trying to lift yourself up off the ground - impossible. The questions of origins cannot, not now, not ever, be explained by science; they can only come because the creator chooses to reveal them to us.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot remove God from the equation.

Undeniable Design

I heard an interesting article on Radio 4 the other day, and came across it again today on the BBC website, about how Scientists are at last trying to tackle the "problem" of the "apparent" design behind the Universe.

The "problem" has been coined the "Goldilocks Enigma" because there are so many factors in the laws of physics (the strength of forces, the charges and masses of fundamental particles etc) which if changed by even a minute amount would cause the Universe to be such that life would be impossible, and yet the Universe is "Just Right" for life. It is undeniable that the Universe has been "fine tuned" for life - the only problem (for the atheist scientist) is how.

Here are a couple of quotes from the book "The Goldilocks Enigma" by Paul Davies:

If almost any of the basic features of the universe, from the properties of atoms to the distribution of the galaxies, were different, life would very probably be impossible. Now, it happens that to meet these various requirements, certain stringent conditions must be satisfied in the underlying laws of physics that regulate the universe, so stringent in fact that a biofriendly universe looks like a fix - or 'a put-up job', to use the pithy description of the late British cosmologist Fred Hoyle. It appeared to Hoyle as if a super-intellect had been 'monkeying' with the laws of physics. He was right in his impression. On the face of it, the universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings. Like the porridge in the tale of Goldilocks and the three bears, the universe seems to be 'just right' for life, in many intriguing ways. No scientific explanation for the universe can be deemed complete unless it accounts for this appearance of judicious design. Until recently, 'the Goldilocks factor' was almost completely ignored by scientists. Now, that is changing fast.

So, how come existence? At the end of the day, all the approaches I have discussed are likely to prove unsatisfactory. In fact, in reviewing them they all seem to me to be either ridiculous or hopelessly inadequate: a unique universe which just happens to permit life by a fluke; a stupendous number of alternative parallel universes which exist for no reason; a pre-existing God who is somehow self-explanatory; or a self-creating, self-explaining, self-understanding universe-with observers, entailing backward causation and teleology. Perhaps we have reached a fundamental impasse dictated by the limitations of the human intellect.

It is just a shame that when faced with this undeniable evidence that the Universe was designed and created for life, that Scientists feel the need to pull a rabbit out of a hat, in this case suggesting backwards causality, rather than accepting as he very nearly does, that he has reached the limits of human understanding and is now into the realm of the divine.

It is also a shame that this age-old evidence is only getting media attention now because authors like this one claim to have found a way around it!

"The universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator," says the author... well, there's a very simple explanation for that observation... it was!


For 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, so that men are without excuse. (Ro 1:20)

The Creator's Wisdom

Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding...By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; (Pr 3:13,19)

Mankind generally takes it for granted that he can understand the Universe that he is a part of. But if you think about it for a moment why should that be? Is it inevitable that our minds are advanced enough compared to the complexity of the Universe? Is it not possible to postulate that our minds could have been a little bit simpler, or the Universe a little bit more complex? Water beetles have no knowledge of surface tension, nor do birds have any understanding of aerodynamics. Yet man is able not only to ponder the Universe but to grasp and explain its workings.

Such understanding comes not just from a study of the Creation, but as a gift from the Creator. He allows man to find the same wisdom with which he fashioned the Cosmos. How Ironic therefore that some would try to use this knowledge of Creation (Science) as an argument to disprove the Creator. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! Scientific knowledge can no more disprove God, than a knowledge of Windows can disprove Microsoft. None of the greatest scientific minds ever thought this way; Newton, Einstein, Maxwell - all had a deep reverence for the God behind the knowledge they advanced.

Yet to all knowledge there is a limit. When God set man in the garden he gave him everything except the fruit of one tree; the knowledge from that fruit was off limits. There are limits too to what Science can explain. Many scientists hate to admit this, but it is true. God has granted us knowledge into his Universe, but he has still set limits. The most important aspects of truth are not discovered through the investigation of man, but by revelation from God. Sinful man however is never content to take God at his word and in arrogance reaches out for that forbidden fruit, seeking the knowledge that is beyond his grasp - this is where Science becomes idolatry.

True science enhances our appreciation for God's handiwork. False science sets itself up in the place of God.

Rejecting Darwin without embracing nonsence

For those of you who don't check my recent comments list, I'd just like to draw your attention to an excellent comment I just received on an old post, from Lars Osland.

In the comment he recommends a website www.answersingenesis.org, and having given the site a quick peruse, I would like to second the recommendation. It has many resources, and links to other reference material to support the Genesis creation account and reject Darwinism.... without losing all scientific credibility in the process! The contributors to the site are credible scientists, and help cut through the unhelpful creationism pseudoscience to reveal the real scientific reasons why Darwinism is unsound. [Update: Having read the site in more detail now, it is not immune from dubious theories (see comments section). So for the record, I don't agree with it all!]

In particular he points out a link to: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Which is definitely worth a read before you enter a debate with a scientist over evolution. There are enough genuine reasons to reject Darwinism, but quite often "creation-scientists" do not help the cause by proposing theories that are equally ridiculous, or easily shot down.

I must confess to feeling quite vindicated, that one of the top arguments the site proposes against Darwinism is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is a whole section on it. This is an argument I have been championing on this site for some time. It is a very basic scientific law, that Physicists and Chemists learn while they are still at school (A' level) but the inevitable consequences of which seem to escape many who hold PhDs in Biology! The second law means that the increase in order in the species over time needed to support Darwin's theory of Evolution (or the "particle-to-people theory" as the AiG site puts it - I like that!) is not just highly improbable but totally impossible! it violates one of the most iron-clad physical laws in the Universe.

Darwinists often counter with the "open-system" response as to why the second law does not apply to processes on the earth, and so sweep it under the carpet. But the AiG site has an excellent response which proves this is an invalid argument... if you think about it, it has to be an invalid argument! If the Second Law of Thermodynamics did not apply on earth, scientists would never have discovered it in the first place!


For those who are not of a scientific disposition, there are also some nice illustrations like the one below:

Bad Day for Darwin

According to a survey reported by the BBC:

More than half the British population does not accept the theory of evolution.

And 44% said they would like creation to be taught as an alternative in the classroom.


It's curious is it not, when part of the argument for Evolution is: "No one seriously doubts it to be true." It seems this Emperor's New Clothes effect is wearing off at last. I wonder how much longer we will still be force fed it as an "unquestionable fact" in every natural history program the BBC and others produce?

The Hand that made us is divine

The spacious firmament on high,
With all the blue ethereal sky,
And spangled heavens, a shining frame,
Their great Original proclaim.
The unwearied sun from day to day
Does his Creator’s power display,
And publishes to every land
The works of an almighty hand.

Soon as the evening shades prevail
The moon takes up the wondrous tale,
And nightly to the listening earth
Repeats the story of her birth;
Whilst all the stars that round her burn
And all the planets in their turn,
Confirm the tidings, as they roll,
And spread the truth from pole to pole.

What though in solemn silence all
Move round the dark terrestrial ball;
What though no real voice nor sound
Amid their radiant orbs be found;
In reason’s ear they all rejoice,
And utter forth a glorious voice;
Forever singing as they shine,
“The hand that made us is divine.”

–Joseph Addison


I was thrilled to discover yesterday on Matthew's Blog, a link to the complete text of "Through New Eyes" by James Jordan. If you haven't read this book, stop what you are doing and download it now! It is an outstanding book that will help you get the most out of the Bible by bridging the gap between our 21st Century way of thinking, and the worldview and symbolism contained in the pages of scripture.

I have been devouring it again, and came across this poem that I really like. It appeals to me both as a scientist and as a believer. The true study of science will never disprove God — how could it?! That is a fantasy propogated by the lies of the Darwinists. The study of God's creation will always point to the creator. That is why, when I was at University, the Physics department had one of the largest Christian Union groups of any faculty, and why when you consider the greatest Physicists of all time: Newton, Einstien, Maxwell — they were all firm believers in the divine hand that had shaped the cosmos.

Jordan, correctly points out in his book, that besides being giant balls of gas, the stars are there for a divine purpose. To reveal to all who will see, aspects of their creator. Not just the majesty and awesome greatness and power of God, but they also speak of his rule and his Kingdom. They were placed in the heavens to govern.

I was meditating on this recently, and I believe it explains the purpose behind, what is one of the most misunderstood scientific discoveries of our time.

In 1924 the astronomer Edwin Hubble (Made famous by the recent spectacular images beamed back from the space telescope that bears his name) made observations of the spectra of light emitted from the stars. He made a remarkable discovery. All the spectra were "red-shifted": the spectral lines for the emission of known elements in the stars did not fall on the frequencies they should have, but occurred at lower frequencies. This is an effect known as a doppler shift. Waves from an object travelling towards you appear to have a higher frequency than stationary waves, and those travelling away from you have lower frequencies. It is the reason for the "neeeeeOOOOOW" sound as a race car goes past: you hear the engine sound make a high-pitch noise as it is approaching, and a low pitch one as it roars away.

The fact that all the spectra of light were red-shifted meant something amazing: all the stars in the universe are moving away from us. This led to the discovery that the Universe is expanding — all the time, and in every direction — something that was also predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. But this data has been misinterpreted! Georges Lemaître, in 1927 proposed what is now known as the Big Bang theory, by assuming that if the universe will be bigger tomorrow than it is today, it must have been smaller yesterday, and even smaller the day before that, all the way back to when it would shrink to a single point.

It is interesting to note however, that although this theory is today championed by atheists, it's original proponent, Lemaître,was a Christian, and tried to use it as proof that God had created the Universe.

If only Lemaître had read Jordan's book!! (I know it wasn't around then!) Then he would have understood that the eternal expansion of the Universe is there to tell us about the nature of God's kingdom. I believe it to be a cosmic declaration of Isaiah 9 verse 7! Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. And we would have been spared the precedent of trying to explain creation by science; a trap which many Christians still fall into. Creation defines the laws of science; science does not, nor can it, explain the miraculous divine act of creation itself. Its ultimate purpose is to point us to God.

All heaven declares the glory of the risen Lord!

Logic proves the existence of God

God exists! This is not just a statement of faith, but a conclusion of abstract logic.

Take the age old problem: "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" It is a very profound question, because to get a chicken you need an egg, but to get an egg, you need a chicken. The chickens we now see, came from eggs, which in turn came from chickens, which came from eggs and so on backwards in time. Logically there are two, and only two, explanations to this problem: either chickens (and all life by extension) have an infinate ancestry, or they had a moment of genesis.

The argument does not just apply to life, but to everything that goes on in the Universe. All things that happen in the Universe have a cause: there is nothing that "just happens." We refer to this as Cause and Effect. But the things we regard as "causes" are in reality also "effects", that is they themselves did not "just happen" but came about because of an earlier causal event, which in turn happened because of something earlier, and so on back in time — just as with the chickens and the eggs. So with the Universe itself, there are equally only two logical explanations: either these chain of events stretch back to infinty past, or there must be a Primal Cause. That is, a "Cause" that is not itself dependent on anything prior for its existence. As everything in our Universe IS dependent on something prior, it cannot be a cause from within, it must be a cause from without. Thus whether or not you know who or what this Primal Cause is, you cannot logically argue against it. If the Universe has a beginning there must be a pre-existent external entity that started it off.

Atheism is not a logical option!

[See also: Science proves the existence of God]

More on Faith and Science

I have just discovered an excellent Blog: Real Physics, written by a Christian with a doctorate in physics. He argues extremely lucidly (much better than me) against Darwinian evolution and for Intelligent design.

I wonder how many such individuals it will take before the Darwinists drop their assertion that evolution is a universally accepted theory amongst the scientific community, and that all who disagree are uninformed and naive??

See also:
Faith and Science
In the Beginning [on Roger's blog]
In the Beginning (2) [on Roger's blog]


[UPDATE: The author of Real Physics has pointed out that "Intelligent Design" is a movement with views that he does not completely endorse. I used this term in ignorance of this fact. See the comments to this post for more information - or better still visit MJ's site and see what he has to say for himself - it's good stuff!]

Faith and Science

On 1 April Roger Aubrey posted an article on his Blog entitled In the Beginning on the subject of Darwin's theory of evolution. I wrote a comment to this post that caused quite a stir. Roger posted it again as In the Beginning(2).

Since then the pro/anti evolution discussion that has ensued has outgrown the original purpose of the post. Roger has moved on to other things, and has politely asked that the debate be moved elsewhere. Whilst I think we had all come to the conclusion that there was little more to be gained from further debate, this is one of those issues that just won't go away. So if there is anything futher to be added; here is the place to do it.

Science Proves the Existence of God

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: In a closed system [one without external influences] the amount of Entropy [disorder] will always increase with time.

This is an "uncheatable" law. That is it always applies, you cannot get round it, there are no exceptions. It is so well established that some Scientists believe that it determines the "Arrow of Time." That is if you view a video tape of any scientific event, the only way you can tell if you are viewing it forward or backwards is by whether entropy is increasing or decreasing. All other scientific laws work identically both forwards and backwards.



The implications are immense. It means that any order that exists in the Universe absolutely cannot be the result of the passage of time (as some so called scientific theories would have us believe), it must be the result of an external influence. We know there is order in the Universe. We know the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be true. So the only logical conclusion we can come to is that there is a God.