Pastor Robin Stephen Aldrich: PLEASE don’t take this as criticism, but I had to address a sentence in your blog. It was too much for a comment. About the statement : ‘Science has no equipment to handle relationship with God.’ Science may not can explain the RELATIONSHIP with God, but it can prove His hand upon creation. Look at the mathematical regularity in the planets being set apart in ‘astronomical units.’ (see picture) Even atheistic scientists have had to admit it. “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commence suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy" (Jastrow; God and the Astronomers, 14). "The scientists pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: `In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'" (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 115). "That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact" (Jastrow; Christianity Today,8-6-83, p. 15) The anthropic principle is the most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It is a very theistic result" (Jastrow, Christianity Today [1982], 17). Astronomer Victor J. Stenger: "The universe exploded out of nothingness" (Free Inquiry, Winter, 1992-93, 13). (there was nothing, and bang—there was something!) “It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits.... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being" ("Scholium," 369). -Sir Issac Newton "The anthropic principle is the most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It is a very theistic result" (Jastrow, Christianity Today [1982], 17). (Jastrow was an atheist) The Universe was Fine-Tuned for Human Life 1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life. * 2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist. 3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for life. 4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life. 5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for life. 6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life. 7. The speed of light is proper amount for life. 8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together. 9. The distance between stars is necessary for life. 10. The cosmological constant (energy density of space) is minutely right for matter to exist. 11. The right amount of seismic activity is needed for life. 12. The position of Jupiter protects life on earth. Microbiologist Michael Behe: "No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner--no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion." "Other examples… abound, including aspects of DNA reduplication, electron transport, telomere synthesis, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and more" (Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 187, 160). "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science…. Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity" (Behe, 183). Or the universal appearance of the Fibonacci Spiral, sometimes called the Golden Spiral. Or the fact that leaves appear on branches in a Fibonacci Sequence, in odd numbers. n . From Astronomy (Anthropic Principle) – a. Anticipatory design shows an intelligent Designer. – b. Human life shows anticipatory design. c. Hence, human life shows an intelligent Designer Teleological Argument: n A. From Astronomy (Anthropic Principle) – 1. Anticipatory design shows an intelligent designer. – 2. Human life shows anticipatory design. – 3. Hence, human life shows an intelligent designer. n B. From Micro Biology (Argument 1) – 1. Specified complexity has an intelligent designer. – 2. First life had specified complexity. – 3. Hence, first life had an intelligent designer. The Reactions of Some Scientists: Arthur Eddington: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me…. I should like to find a genuine loophole" (in Heeren, Show Me God, 81). Einstein: “This circumstance [of an expanding Universe] irritates me." And "To admit such possibilities seems senseless" Why? "I believe in Spinoza's [pantheistic] God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists" (in Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 28). Robert Jastrow: "There is a kind of religion in science. It is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe.... There is no first cause.... This religious faith of the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control" (GA 113-114). Harvard’s Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs… because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a materialistic explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes…. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” (New York Review of Books, 1/9/96). "The scientists pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: `In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'" (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 115). Conclusion: But God does exist (as the evidence shows from): 1. The beginning of the universe. 2. The intelligent design of life. 3. The moral law 4. The need for God. Therefore, — 1. Miracles are possible 2. Truth is absolute 3. Morality is absolute 4. The Bible is credible 5. Life has ultimate meaning Objection: Things could have happened by chance, not by design. Answer: First, the chances are virtually zero. Second, science is not based on chance but on regularity which demands an intelligent cause of life. Third, chance is not a cause. The only causes are natural forces are intelligent ones. And life needs an intelligent cause. So, my point is don’t reject science. True science, and honest scientists, prove the existence of God because the mathematical regularity, and how everything is fine-tuned, cannot have happened by chance. Many top-level scientists have come to faith in God by the science itself, but their voices are suppressed. The word says that God shows Himself in creation. Science is a study of what He created. It’s not evil. Evil scientists aren’t always honest. I’ve been meaning to record my apologetics class and put it on my video platforms. I’ll try to work on that next year. This year has been busy.