Christian Apologetics

What is Apologetics? and why is it important?
First what it is not! the word 'Apologetics' does not mean an apology! Far from it!

Apologetics may be defined as the defence of a sincerely held viewpoint, but especially the Christian faith. It derives from the Greek word apologia, which was originally used of a speech of defence or an answer given in reply.
The Greek 'Apologia' consists of the roots 'apo' meaning away (usually as far away as possible) and 'logia' means speak logically. So Apologetics simply means to 'logically speak away' arguments against an accusation. For Christians, Apologetics means to argue against accusations from non-believers who attack orthodox Christian beliefs.
The word 'Apologia' appears 17 times in noun or verb form in the New Testament, and both can be translated 'defence' or 'vindication' in every case. Usually the word is used to refer to a speech made in one’s own defence. For example, in one passage Luke says that a Jew named Alexander tried to make a 'defence' before an angry crowd in Ephesus that was incited by idol-makers whose businesses was threatened by Paul’s preaching (Acts 19:33). Elsewhere Luke always uses the word in reference to situations in which Christians, and in particular the apostle Paul, and others, are put on trial for proclaiming their faith in Christ and have to defend their message against the charge of being unlawful (Luke 12:11; 21:14; Acts 22:1; 24:10; 25:8, 16; 26:2, 24).
Apologetics is important because Christians are urged in 1Peter3:15 ”believers are told always to be prepared to make a 'defence' to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.”

Intelligent Design Anthony Flew
(probably the foremost 20th Century's UK Atheistic Philosopher)

Lifelong academic atheist Antony Flew, before his death at age 87, summarized his change of mind about the issue of Intelligent Design in an October 30th, 2007 interview with Dr. Benjamin Wiker. When asked to explain his reasoning, Flew said:

"There were two factors in particular that were decisive:-
:- One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical universe.
:- The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself - which is far more complex than the physical universe - can only be explained in terms of an intelligent source.

I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in 'The God Delusion' that the origin of life can be attributed to a lucky chance. If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.

There is more to explain now than ever before. A half a decade of studied observation has brought us closer to an answer for the origin of life, mostly by virtue of failed research paradigms. And that's the way of science; we gain in knowledge not merely by validating hypotheses, but by rejecting those which fail. The more we've rejected hypotheses involving mere chance, and allowed for a theory of intelligent organization, origination and even perhaps periodic intervention, the more we've come to understand the distinctives* of the fossil record the prospects for rapidity of change, and the subtleties of genetic programming.

Research into 'junk DNA', 'pseudogenes', and other areas of supposedly vestigial code degradation, is yielding avenues of new discovery and practical application, as active functions are discovered for these areas of former confusion. The odds are too long to continue to bet against, much less exclude by definition, the involvement of a designing intelligence.

Despite millions spent in research, a myriad of discoveries made, and many legitimately helpful applications of that knowledge, a strictly naturalist paradigm is becoming vestigial, and it's more necessary now than ever to seek to understand the instrumentalities employed by life's intelligent designer."

* Human distinctives such as massive brain power, bipedalism, advanced culture, etc are strong indicators, perhaps even compelling reasons for the evidence of God (or at least an intelligent designer).

Intelligent Design - Professor Richard Lewontin
(Geneticist and self-proclaimed Marxist)

Richard Lewontin is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against God, the super natural, intelligent design (of creation and life) regardless of whether or not the facts support it. Here is the quote in full:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.    
{emphasis added}
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen."

The false assertion, repeatedly made by atheists and humanists, that miracles 'rupture the regularities of nature' implies, in their eyes, that a miracle when performed somehow suspends the 'laws of nature'. It does no such thing. The law of gravity states that any two masses will attract each other, the 'force' of attraction depending on the size of the masses. An apple has a very small mass compared to the mass of the planet Earth so we observe an apple falling towards the Earth. But I can intervene locally by catching the apple. Have I 'ruptured the law of gravity'? Of course not! The law of gravity still applies whether I intervene or not. It is exactly the same with miracles. Whatever intervention, in His wisdom, God performs locally (such as miracles) does not in any way 'rupture the laws of nature' that apply universally, and continue to do so. The more pertinent question would be 'Why should there be a coherent set of laws of nature rather than utter chaos?

Intelligent Design
Mathematics - the probabalistic impossibility of biogenesis

If you understand 'powers of numbers' simply Click to display Probability Calculations
For an interesting review of a DVD click a Critique of Darwinian Evolution
To return to this web page, select the 'left arrow' at the top of the page and click it.

For life to have started chemically on the early Earth (assuming that all 20 normally occuring amino acids were available, that an idealised atmosphere existed and abundant lightning was capable of providing a suitable energy source), Evolutionists still must come up with a 'just-so' story that addresses the following biological difficulties:
1. The assembly of long amino acid chains, each link of the chain being one of the 20 normally occuring amino acids, and all of these amino acids must be in the correct position so that the resultant amino acid chain (at least 150 long and some more than 1000 long) can spontaneosly fold into a particular functioning protein shape. This is known as the probabilistic problem.
2. Amino acids all exist in two forms (actually 3 forms, but for simplicity we will ignore the third) - either they are left-handed or they are right-handed. Organic molecules in biological organisms only use left-handed amino acids. Proteins are essential to all living organisms and they must contain only left-handed amino acids, Yet left-handed and right-handed amino acids have similar bonding characteristics so if amino acids join randomly either a left-handed or a right-handed amino acid has an equal chance of bonding with amother amino acid. This is known as the Chirility problem

Chirility is a massive problem for Evolutionist who claim that very long amino acid chains that fold into proteins were formed by chance (given enough time). But the pressence of just one right-handed amino acid in a protein chain destroys the protein because it cannot fold into the correct shape.
All sugars, on the other hand, use only right handed amino acids, and sugars are absolutely essential for an organism's metabolism. If sugars contain any left-handed molecules, all organisms would starve to death because such molecules cannot be metabolised.

Intelligent Design
Complexity of Eukaryote and Procaryote Cells

Procaryote cells (no nucleus) such as bacteria

Prokaryote cells are relatively simple compared to Eukaryote cells, but all cells are exceedingly complex when compared to proteins. It is difficult to conceive of how a simple protein could possibly be assembled by sheer chance, but this problem pales into insignificance compared to the chance that even the simplest prokaryote cell could self-assemble, even if all the proteins necessary to construct the cell were available.

Prokaryotes are small (indeed very small) single celled organisms that do not contain membrane bound organelles or a nucleus. However, Prokaryote cells do have DNA (with genes), but unlike eukaryote cells, this DNA is circular and the DNA does not contain proteins. The prokaryote cell construction does contain many proteins. Prokaryote cells are always unicelluar and possess no organelles (that is there are no specialised structures that perform specialised tasks within the prokaryote cell). Prokaryote cells get their energy by breaking down chemicals and releasing the energy stored in the bonds that they break. They need nutriants, mainly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen and sulphar and traces of iron, boron and other nutrients to enable them to survive and function.. Prokaryote cells are extremely mobile, getting its mobility by a rotating flagellum (see next section).

The flagellum is a very complex structure consisting of up to 24 proteins assembled into what has been described as a biological 'outboard motor'. Indeed, the flagellum has been described by Evolutionary scientists as follows:
The bacterial flagellum is driven by a rotary engine made up of proteins, located at the flagellum's anchor point on the inner cell membrane. The engine is powered by proton motive force, (protons (hydrogen ions) flow across the bacterial cell membrane due to a concentration gradient set up by the cell's metabolism). There are two kinds of flagella, lateral and polar, and some are driven by a sodium ion pump rather than a proton pump. The rotor transports protons across the membrane, and is turned in the process. The rotor alone can operate at 6,000 to 17,000 rpm, but with the flagellar filament attached usually only reaches 200 to 1000 rpm. The direction of rotation can be switched almost instantaneously, caused by a slight change in the position of a particular protein in the rotor. The flagellum is highly energy efficient and uses very little energy.
According to Evolutionists, this remarkable multi-protein assembly 'evolved' by chance. The biological scientist Michael Behe however is of the opinion that this highly functional and efficient assemblage of proteins is effectively irreducably complex and this is a distinctive hallmark of design.
However, Evolutionists claim that because some of the proteins can be removed and the flagellum still functions it is not strictly irreducably complex (although the resultant flagellum's efficiency and functionality is significantly impaired). They also claim that other systems in the cell share some 10 proteins in different, but similar, assemblages. They claim that the flagellum 'evolved' from this simplar assemblage. But this is highly unlikely because a prokaryote cell needs a flagellum to enable it to be mobile to survive. The flagellum is sensitive to food sources and to harmful chemicals, causing the bacterium cell to seek food sources (from which it gets its energy) and to avoid harmful chemicals. The flagellum would need to be available as soon as a bacterial cell exists otherwise the cell's ability to sustain itself would be fatally impaired.

Eucaryote cells (with nucleus) such as plants and animals

Eukaryote cells are significantly more complex that prokaryote cells. The most significant difference is that eukaryote cells have membrane-bound organelles. The organelles (and there are many that perform very specialised functions) are similar in structure to prokayote cells without a flagellum. The most important organelle is the nucleus, which contains the genetic material (especially the DNA, RNA, etc), and this is enclosed by the nuclear envelope. In addition to the nucleus, eukaryotic cells contain several other types of organelles, and in human cells this includes the mitochondria, chloroplasts, the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi apparatus, and lysosomes. Each of these organelles performs a specific function critical to the cell's survival. Moreover, nearly all eukaryotic organelles are separated from the rest of the cellular space by a membrane, in much the same way that interior walls separate the rooms in a house. The mitochondria produces the energy that the eukaryote cells needs to survive and function. DNA contains the information required to build cellular proteins. In eukaryotic cells, the membrane that surrounds the nucleus (commonly called the nuclear envelope) partitions this DNA from the cell's protein synthesis machinery, which is located in the cytoplasm. Tiny pores in the nuclear envelope, called nuclear pores, then selectively permit certain macromolecules to enter and leave the nucleus (including the RNA molecules that carry information from a cellular DNA to protein manufacturing centers in the cytoplasm). This separation of the DNA from the protein synthesis machinery provides eukaryotic cells with more intricate regulatory control over the production of proteins and their RNA intermediates.

The structure of cells, simple cells like bacterial prokaryote cells and the much more complex eukaryote cells are evidence of a superlative designer rather than random evolutionary chance occurances. Given that the chance of a portein self-assembling is virtually impossible, the chance that these proteins could self assemble into complex biological systems (like a cell) makes for compelling evidence to support the former explanation as much more plausable rather than the Evolutionary reliance on pure undirected chance But scientists have an a-priori belief in materialism, and reject out-of-hand (despite the evidence) the super-natural, The Evolutionist's 'just-so' stories will need to suffice no matter how absurd they are to the un-biased mind.

The Fossil Record and Age of the Earth

Do the rocks and fossils testify to millions of years, so that the thousands-of-years history of the Bible must be rejected?     The answer is no!,
Paleontologists (fossil experts) use the strata in the 'geological column' to define some fossils as so called 'index fossils'. These are particular fossils that are in a particular layer of know age and when a similar fossil is discovered elsewhere, they assume that it is the same age.
The problem is that Geologists (rock specialists) often use these 'index fossils' to estimate the age of a sedementary rock layer because radiometric dating techniques often give widely varying results - because all radiometric dating involves multiple assumptions. So these 'index fossils' help to date the rocks.
But this is an entirely circular argument - the 'index fossils' are dated because of the age of strata in which they are found, but the starta are aged by the 'index fossils' located in them.

One difficulty that geologists and paleotologist have is explaing what are known as 'polystrate trees' and other vertical fossils (including a whale) that span many strata of sedementary rock that was laid down slowly over many millions of years. However, there are many examples of what are termed 'polystrate' fossils that is fossils of living things that are fossilised in the vertical position and spanning many strata. Evolutionsist cannot deny their existence - there are so many of these and they agree that in these instances the sedementary layers (or strata) all must have been deposited very rapidly, one on top of the other such that the fossilised item had no time to disintegrate as any protruding part from the first layer most certainly would. However, evolutionist have another 'just so' story to explain this phenomenon (that looks very like what would be expected with a catastrophic flood event). The above image is of one such 'polystrate' tree spanning not just one strata but four distinct strata.

Evolutionists claim that dinosaur's fossils, without exception, pre-date humans by many millions of years yet there are numerous cave drawings by humans that pre-date modern science that clearly depict humans and dinosaurs juxtapose one another. How could cave men know what dinosaurs looked like if dinosaurs pre-date humans by millions of years? The short answer is that they could not. However, is this truly a carved image of a dinosaur - The Smithsonian debunks these, and all other such depictions, as wishful thinking, or creationists seeing what they want to see. They claim they are random pieces of clay that happen to look like dinosaurs, or even cave men depicting an interesting shape of a cloud that they have just seen. But there are very many of these 'artistic accidents' in ancient cave drawings (the Smithsonian accepts that these drawings are the work of ancient cave men communities). They may be correct in their assertions, but they always accept as genuine all the drawings depicting humans, dogs, etc as these accord with their millions of years necessary for evolution to have any chance of occurring. On the other hand, if actually drawn by humans, then these dinosaurs must have roamed the planet at the same time and humans recorded this for posterity without them realising what a devastating piece of evidence against evolutionary theory this would one day prove to be. Evolutionists have a problem explaining such cave drawings because even if this was a cloud formation, why would a caveman who has never seen a dinosaur draw such a formation and not other interesting cloud formations? Today if we saw such a cloud formation we would say 'Hey, that cloud looks like a dinosaur', and whip out our cameras. But according to Evolutionists, a caveman couldn't possibly know what a dinosaur looked like, so such a cloud formation would simply be another random cloud formation. And this chance observation of a funny cloud formation would have to be remembered in detail long enough for him/her to return to their cave, get their scratching tools and spend time drawing this odd shape. Why would they do that? It seems so utterly pointless and a total waste of time. Alterntively, if they did know what dinosaurs looked like, well this hunting scene would now make a lot of sense. Evolutionists are very clever at being very selective in what and how they present their 'evidence' to the general public, especially the very gullible media.
The above image has been enhanced by an added circle to focus attention on the dinosaur(s) along with the 'match-stick' hunter gatherers, that even Evolutions agree, were certainly drawn by ancient humans.

Radiometric Dating of Fossils and Sedementary Rocks

There are many radiometric dating methods, all are 'accurate' over different time frames, but the accuracy depends on the initial conditions and as no one was there to observe these initial conditions, then the best assumptions are made to eliminate contradictory results from different methods. The most common methods are

    Uranium-lead dating method
    Samarium-neodymium dating method
    Potassium-argon dating method
    Rubidium-strontium dating method
    Uranium-thorium dating method
    Radiocarbon dating method

How do these dating methods work. Take Radiocarbon as an example. The element carbon has the chemical symbol C12. Radioactive carbon (an isotope of normal carbon) has the chemical symbol C14. All amimals and plant life can absorb C14 and much more C12 while living, but when they die no more C14 is absorbed. This radioactive C14 decays to become the element carbon C12, and the concentration of C14 is halved every 5,730 years (that is the half-life of C14). However an assumption has to be made as to the concentration of C14 to C12 in the atmosphere (and in food) before an age of a fossil can be determined.

Many things affect this concentration including volcanoes, solar wind, the concentration of CO2, and even nuclear testing. etc. The most important assumption is the estimate of the concentration of the daughter elemeont (C12) at the initial condition (that is when the fossil was formed). The less C14 relative to C12 the older the fossil.

Another method is Uranium which decays to its daughter element Lead, and so on.

When multiple radiometric methods are used to date the same fossil, they often differ by many tens of million of years, because the assumptions regarding the various daughter elements can never be accurately determined. There is no scientific method of estimating this - its a guess, even if it is an educated one. But in determining these 'educated estimates' they require information as to the sedimentary rock layer in which it was found, then choose the best (usually the oldest) date and method that agrees with the 'index fossil' date.

When Mount St Helens erupted in Washington State in 1980, lava from this eruption was sent for radioactive dating in 2000, but the lava source was not disclosed nor was the strata layer in which it was found disclosed. The radiometric 'dates' returned by the scientists (from disparate laborities) differed by many 10's of millions of years. But here is the problem: the age of the sedementary lava created by the Mount St Helen eruption was known preceisely (only 20 years old in 2000). The initial conditions were also know with a high degree of accuracy. Yet radiometric dating of this lava estimated them to be many millions of years old. Most radiometric dating that is performed on fossils depend as much on the information suppied by the fossil finder, such as the sedementary layer in which it was found, then the radiometric method that dates the fossil close to the index date associated with the sedementary layer determines the age of the fossil.
Not exactly the precision in dating fossils that the general public is led to believe.

S.E.T.I. - Search for Extraterrestrial Life

Carl Sagan was one of the most influential 20th Century Astronomers who not only was an eminent Astrophysist, Cosmologist and Astrobiologist (authoring 100's of scientific peer reviwed papers and more that 20 books), but also an extremely gifted populist communicator of scientific concepts to a largely unscientific audience.

His book "Intelligent Life in the Universe" (co-authored with an eminent Russian scientist) was first published in 1965. Carl Sagan made many predictions, but his early predictions, with the establishment of a very well publically funded S.E.T.I. institute, that extraterrestrial life would be detected within a few decades and certainly within his lifetime has proved to be grossly over-optimistic. In the early 1960's the Drake Equation (see later) was all the rage and very optimistic assumptions were made because scientists acepted the atheistic belief that the universe with its billions of galaxies would have millions of stars many of which would have planets like the earth. Consequenty, the belief was that the universe must be teaming with life, much of it more advanced technologically, than we poor humans. All scientist had to do was transmit radio signals and listen for alien signals from other worlds.

Carl Sagan died before the end of the 20th century and even 20 years after his death, with hundreds of scientists dedicated to discovering extraterrestrial life, there is simply not a shred of evidence, no matter how hard they look, to support the contention that extraterrestrial life exists anywhere in the universe other than here on Earth.

However, one of Carl Sagan's quotations is a reformulation of the well kmown scientific fact that it is 'impossible to prove a falsehood' - he states 'failure to find evidence is not evidence of failure' - and of course he is right in that assertion.

It is this scientific paradox that enables S.E.T.I. to continue to 'gobble' up multi-million dollars annually because although evidence for extraterrestrial life has not yet been foung it does NOT 'prove' that it does not exist - they might find it tomorrow, or next week, or next year, or never.

N.A.S.A has sent robotic probes to Mars in the strong belief that life may not be on the Martian surface but that microbial life probably does exist just below the Martian surface. But to their great disappointment, all the sophisticated analysis of Martian soil samples have proved negative.

The trouble is that scientists believe that life is a spontaneous phenomenon and will appears on any solid planet where contitions are favourable (such as liquid water, sunlight, not too much radiation from the planet's sun, and so on). This is further enhanced by the probabalistic 'Drake equation' (Dr Frank Drake)
     is the number of active communicative extraterrestrial civilisations
                and this is the product of:
     is the average rate of star formation in out galaxy
     is the fraction of formed stars that have planets
     is the average number of formed planets that can support life
     is the fraction of those planets that actually randomly develops life
     is the fraction in which life is actually intelligent life
     is the fraction of civilations that have developed communications
     is the length of time that civilisations release detectable communications

Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions.

Indeed, if any of these factors is zero, or approaching zero (such as the factor which as seen with the undirected creation of proteins using random processes is virtually impossible) then the N will be zero or virtually impossibly small.

So is funding S.E.T.I. a total waste of public money? Well, probably not! Hundred's of very talented scientists are employed by S.E.T.I. and have made many significant scientific discoveries and developed very sophisticated methodologies that have enabled scientists to understand the Cosmos and our place in it. Also the pursuit of fundamental scientific knowledge, for its own sake, is (usually) always a noble objective. It is from such that the human race benefits from advances in technologies (mobile phones, digital cameras, satellite communications, GPS positioning, the list is endless). Either the human race progresses through scientific endeavour or at best it stagnates and even worse it declines.

However, the central purpose in establishing S.E.T.I. has not been achieved - absolutely no evidence of the existence of any form of extraterrestrial life (even microbial) has been found (so far). Is that because there may be life somewhere out there but not developed enough to communicate their existance? Highly unlikely because many stars are much older than our sun, so if life could develop spontaneously and it has somewhere in the vastness of space, it ought to be much further developed than we humans. Is it because that random processes resulting in life is so rare that, with the vastness of space, it will be almost impossible to discover it even if alien life forms are trying to communicate? Possibly! Or are alien civilisations so far advanced that they have no interest in communicating with 'primitive' humans - we would be regarded as 'the new kids on the block' with nothing to offer advanced civilisations (other than a habitable planet)? That is also a possibility!

Perhaps it is because human life is unique in the universe having been supernaturally created by God? This supernatural explanation is unceremoneously ruled out because science is no longer defined as a 'search for truth' but rather that science has been redefined, by most of the scientific community, as exclusively a search for 'materialistic explanations' no matter how counter-intuative they may be - Science's committment to materialism is absolute, because we cannot allow a devine foot in the door' as the geneticist, and self declared Marxist, Robert C Lowentin so aptly put it.

Do we really want to communicate with alien civilisations? Just think about it for a moment - According to scientists it was over 4 billion years ago the Earth was created and it is only in the last 100 years of human existence that technology has blossomed (radios, cars, TVs, telephones, computers, mobile devices, digital devices, space exploration, and satellite communications, the list is almost endless). It would be highly unlikely that any alien civilisation capable of inter-stellar communication with us would be at the same development stage as we humans. Much more likely that they would be hundreds even many thousands of years further advanced technologically than the human race. Think how far human technology has advanced in 100 years. What advances in technology will the next 100 years bring, or another 1,000 years from now? Such advanced aliens might even regard humans (and all life on Earth) in the same sort of way we regard mice - useful for experiments but expendible.

The Scientific Method is not at odds with a belief in God - but Scientism is! Scientism is a phylisophical position that claims to reduce all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge, or put another way all truth is scientific. But this is clearly an absurdity because how can anyone prove scientifically that this statement is true - logically it cannot be proved - but it is believed by most scientist that it is true. Scientism is in effect a pseudo religion, but it is this belief that forces scientist to dismiss all other forms of 'truth'. But how did true science, that is the classical Scientific Method (of hypothesis, expirimentation, observation and defining laws) start? In the 16th and 17th century, Christians with inquisitive minds, wished to discern the truths of nature. Christians believed two fundamental Biblical truths: Today, most scientists believe that science and religion are incompatible. This is probably the first of many 'just so stories' that is a 'white' lie. Certainlly before the Scientific Method, most phenomena were mystical and not understood. But after Galileo was imprisoned by the Roman Catholic Church, science triumphed. This is a gross simplification. Why was Galileo imprisoned? Actually he was supported in his scientific endeavours by the Roman Catholic Jesuits and they wholeheartedly accepted his conclusions. It was the eminent Aristotelian learned philosophers ('scientists') of the day that violently disagreed with Galileo's conclusions because he was postulating a theory that contradicted everything they believed and taught. This 'heresy' threatened their status and livliehood. It was they who demanded that the Pope renounce Galileo and imprison him, not the church per se. The same is happening today when scientist dare question the current evolutionary paradigm, they are threatened with funding cuts, loss of promotion and even their employment - believe evolution or suffer the consequences.

Isaac Newton, probably one of the greatest scientists, stated that he studied and investigated all sorts of phenomenon because he wanted to 'know' the mind of God. And in modern times it was a Belium Priest, Georges Lemaitre who postulated that the universe had a beginning and that it was expanding. Albert Einstein did not agree and Sir Fred Hoyle dismissed it as a ridiculous idea and gave it the derogatory title of the 'Big Bang'. Two years after Fr Georges Lemaitre published his theory Edwin P Hubble, using his powerful telescope confirmed that the universe was indeed expanding and later the remnent back-ground radiation of the Big Bang was detected. Both these scientists received Nobel Prizes for their discoveries, but the religious 'genius' Lemaitre received virtually no recognition, but as he was such a modest man it didn't really trouble him. Indeed it was Lemaitre who convinced Einstein to change his mind and in doing so Einstein removed a 'Cosmological Constant' he introduced to force the universe to be static and called it the greatest mistake of his life.

Endosymbiosis Hypothesis
(Lynn Margulis in 1970 in her book The Origin of Eukaryotic Cells)

Dr Lynn Margulis was no evolutionist biologist - indeed she went so far as to call neo-Darwinism "a complete funk" and asserted that "The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It's just that they've got nothing to offer but intelligent design or 'God did it.' They have no alternatives that are scientific." She was a scientist who wasn't afraid to think creatively, disregarding the scorn of her colleagues. According to the Telegraph, a response to one grant application she made said: "Your research is crap. Don't ever bother to apply again."
However, Lynn Margulis took a controversial view on how evolution works when she proposed a possible scientific hypothesis stressing the importance of symbiotic and co-operative relationships rather than Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' (competition). This concept of evolution inspired what is now recognized as her most notable idea, the notion that the eukaryotic mitochondrion - the power plant of the cell - was acquired by virtue of an endosymbiotic event. The theory proved to be wrong, but at least she postulated a methodology that science could test.
Endosymbiotic theory essentially maintains that mitochondria arose by virtue of a symbiotic union of prokaryote cells.
This hypothesis claims that as a result of their communal and parasitic lives, bacterial cells turned into plant and animal cells ("Just like that" as Tommy Cooper would say).. According to this theory, plant cells emerged when a photosynthetic bacterium was swallowed by another bacterial cell. The photosynthetic bacterium evolved inside the parent cell into a chloroplast. Lastly, organelles with highly complex structures such as the nucleus, the Golgi apparatus, the endoplasmic reticulum, and ribosome evolved, in some way or other. Thus, the plant cell was born.
This is another 'just so' story so loved by evolutionist, but it is completely devoid of any scientific verification, but rather it has been 'laughed out of court' in many peer reviewed publications by renowned biologists. For example, molecular biologist P. Whitfield describes the situation:
"If one prokaryote could not engulf another, it is difficult to imagine how endosymbioses could be set up. Unfortunately for this theory there are no modern examples of prokaryotic endocytosis or endosymbiosis actually existing", not in any scientific experiment so far conducted, and there have been a plethora of evolutionary biologists looking for a single example but to no avail.
More wishful thinking on the part of evolutionist desperate to find, of rather postulate, a possible mechanism as to how eukaryote cells could possibly have arisen from prokaryote (mainly bacteria) cells.

Belief in the Trinity? Not half as difficult as Quantum Mechanics

Many detractors are incredulous that Christians can have faith in something that is, to the limited human mind, so obviously incomprehensible such as the Christian doctrine of a Trinitarian God (that is three persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - in one God). They dismiss such faith as 'blind' or 'foolish' and completely unscientific and illogical. This has always been a difficult argument to refute (how can God be One God and at the same time three persons?) but Christians, in all ages, have always accepted, as a tenet of their faith, this divine revelation that God is indeed both One and Three Persons (singular and plural at the same time) - See for example Genesis 1:26 Then God said ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness ...'

However, with the discovery of Quantum Mechanics the scientific community can no longer ridicule the belief in a Trinitarian God because this branch of Physics is as baffling and difficult to interpret its bizarre results from multiple experiments that universally agree with the preditions of Quantum Mechanics but deny reality.

During the 20th century scientists postulated the theory of Quantum Mechanics, and the associated Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that quantifies the inability to precisely locate a sub-atomic particle. That is a sub-atomic particle's position or it's momentum (direction and speed) can be measured at the same time. It is not that the instruments are not accurate enough - we can never, ever know both at one and the same time.

John Clegg in his book 'The God Effect' states that Quantum Entanglement is a strange feature of quantum physics, the science that governs sub-atomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc). For example, it’s possible to link together two quantum particles - photons of light or atoms - in a special way that makes them effectively two parts of the same entity. You can then separate them as far as you like, and a change in one is instantly reflected in the other. This odd, 'faster than light' link, is a fundamental aspect of quantum science - Erwin Schrödinger, who came up with the name 'entanglement' called it 'the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics'. Entanglement is fascinating in its own right, but what makes it really special are dramatic practical applications that have become apparent in the last few years.

In Quantum Mechanics a light photon sometimes acts as if it is a particle and sometimes as a wave, depending on the observation being made. This is known as wave-particle duality. Niels Bohr won the Nobel Prize for Physics for his work on Quantum Theory. He is quoted as having said 'If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet'. However, despite these real conflicting attributes, scientists do put their faith in Quantum Theory and quite rightly so. Every single scientific experiment on atomic and sub-atomic particles confirm the theory. Its mathematical equations have been used to great effect by advancing technological breakthroughs.

Indeed, much of modern technology operates at sub-atomic levels at which quantum effects are significant Practical examples include lasers, the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging. The study of semiconductors led to the invention of the diode and the transistor, which are indispensable for modern electronics such as mobile phones (

However, irrespective of the success of Quantum Mechanics as a theory, it does give rise to very serious problems of interpretation as to what it actually is. Currently the most commonly held interpretation was proffered by Niels Bohr known as the Copenhagan Interpretaion. This effectively states that there is no such thing as reality in its common use of the term. Since everything is made of atoms and sub-atomic particles, then everything is defined as a Quantum wave function and nothing is defined until an observation (or measurement) is made that collapses this wave function making the observed item, in some sence, 'real'.

Not all physicists accept this because the entire universe is made of atoms and sub-atomic particles and it therefore cannot be 'real' unless there is someone outside the universe to observe it. A major problem for atheistic physicists but not for Christians who believe in a creator God who is outside the universe and constantly observing it.
However, this explanation must be rejected because of scientism's rejection of all things super-natural. So some detractors (such a Hugh Everett) postulate the Multiverse interpretation. This interpretation restores reality to Quantum Mechanics because it postulates that the wave function relates to many possible outcomes and that no matter how unlikely an outcome may be probabalistically, it will occur because the universe continually splits into an infinity of universes, each allowing one or other of the outcomes to be manifested. But we only experience the universe that we are in (although there are multiple copies of us in other universes that experience one of the other possible outcomes). That is an awful lot of other universes.

This is only two of the interpretations, there are others such as Hidden Variables and Statistical interpretations, but I think that two are enough for now. Believing in a Trinitarian God (Father, Son and Holy Ghost, three persons as one God) is a dawdle compared to the various weird interpretations that physicists need to explain the very successful theory of Quantum Mechanics. It seems that the Apostle Paul was 'spot on' when in 1st Corinthians 1:19 he refers to God saying 'For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.'

Universe's Fine Tuning and Life on Earth

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range of values, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.

The finely tuned laws and constants of the universe are an example of specified complexity in nature. They are complex in that their values and settings are highly unlikely. They are specified in that they match the specific requirements needed for life.

The following gives a sense of the degree of fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe:

The last item in the list the initial entropy of the universe shows an astounding degree of fine-tuning. What all this shares is an incredible, astronomically precise, purposeful care and planning that went into the crafting of the laws and constants of the universe, gesturing unmistakably to intelligent design. As Nobel laureate in physics Charles Townes stated:
Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.

These are only a few of the constants that are extrememly fine-tuned that enables matter and life itself to exist. Take the second item in the list - this is the ratio of the Electricmagnetic force compared to the force of gravity. Now we experience gravity as quite strong but it is by far the weakest of the four fundamental forces in the universe (strong Nuclear, Electromagnetic, weak Nuclear and Gravity). 10^37 is just another way of saying that you would need to multiply the force of gravity by
to get the same strength as the electromagnetic force. Yet if this constant changed marginally, life would be impossible. As Psalm 139:14 states I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

Warning - Viewing YouTube Videos

Before starting any of the following 'YouTube' videos ensure that all music is stopped and any pop-up screens are closed otherwise the YouTube video music or speech will be superimposed. You can always restart the music (if desired) at any time.
All the YouTube videos will be displayed in this separate window which you can close at any time.
The following videos are Internet links to YouTube - so you must be connected to the Internet (with a broadband connection) to view and hear these videos (ensure that your speakers or headphones are switched on).
Use the scroll bar on the right hand side of this window to scroll down through the available videos and click the start button on any video of your choice.

You need fast broadband for this option as it downloads YouTube videos

Duration 2 minutes

Duration 1 minute 48 seconds

Duration 9 minute 68 seconds

Duration 1 hour 46 minutes

< Web Site      < Home Page      < Site Map