Pag

e1

REASON - SCIENCE - FAITH

By Robert J. August, 2018

re faith and reason mutually exclusive ideals? Do people of faith forfeit their

claim to logic and reason as secularists charge, or do they have good reasons

to believe God exists?

Atheists argue that faith and science are incompatible, because science is based on

reason and faith is an unsupported belief in something that cannot be observed, or

tested and stifles science.

But this is disingenuous, as dark matter, black holes and other phenomenon

cannot be tested or observed either. Scientists infer their existence using

abductive reasoning based on secondary data. Design theorists use the same

scientific method to infer intelligent agency from cosmological and biological data.

Faith doesn’t stifle scientific discovery, it inspires it.

And it all started with the fathers of modern science like Newton, Galileo,

Copernicus and Kepler. These were all great men of faith who believed that a

rational and intelligible God would make a universe that is rational and

understandable.

It was a Christian scientist named Francis Bacon, who is credited with being the

father of the modern scientific method. It was a Christian of faith who developed a

reasoned and logical way to discern truth through empirical data, observation, and

experimentation.(15) So don’t let anyone try to tell you that good scientists leave

their faith outside the laboratory, or that people of faith have to park their brains

outside doors of reason.

OK, but those brilliant scientists were barely out of the dark ages, hasn’t modern

science distanced humanity from the silly superstitions and myths of the Middle

Ages? Yes and no.

A

Pag

e2

Yes, the ancient Greek gods and alike have all been vanquished by science, but it is

fallacious to conflate the God of the bible, for which there is evidence of (New

Testament witnesses), with ancient mythological figures for which there is none.

And no, because it is from empirical data that scientists infer intelligent agency.

That would be like conflating atheists with genocidal maniacs like Stalin and Mao

Zedong who exterminated 100 million people.

There are good reasons why no one believes Thor exists; conversely there are

good reasons why scientists believe an intelligent agent is responsible for

everything that does exist.

Scientists & Educated People Don’t Believe in God

This is a fallacious (logical error in reasoning) claim called “an appeal to authority”.

On one hand, it claims that something is true simply because an authority says it is,

and on the other hand, it shames a person into acquiescence by suggesting that if

you don’t agree, you are stupid.

Then there is the irrelevance of the statements. Majorities, education or mental

acuity have no bearing on the truthfulness of a claim. If scientists and educated

people believed the earth was flat, the earth would not cease to be round.

In the 1960s, the consensus of scientific authority were still scoffing at the

phenomenon known today as Plate Tectonics(1). Moreover;

In 2016 a Pew Research Poll that showed fully ½ (51%) of American scientists

believed in a higher power or deity(2).

So this claim fails on two fronts; it’s logically irrelevant to the existence of God, and

it’s false. There are multitudes of Nobel Prize winners, Doctors, physicists,

mathematicians, cosmologists, biologists and chemists who believe in God.

Dr. James Tour (renowned synthetic chemist) from “Case For Faith”.

Pag

e3

“I build molecules for a living. I can't begin to tell you how difficult that

job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his

creation. My faith has been increased through my research. Only a rookie

who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If

you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.” [Strobel, Lee (2000), The

Case For Faith, p. 111]

Sound Reasoning

Logic and reason too often take a back seat to laziness, emotion, and or faulty

reasoning. We live in a day where the acid test for what someone says is truth, is

the size of their twitter following. Logically sound reasoning is imperative when

trying to ascertain truth. When evaluating an argument, It’s important to know if

the claims being made are sound or not. Often they are fallacious and irrelevant.

Knowing the difference keeps you from being fooled, and makes you a more

persuasive person.

Origin of Life on Earth

Biology books and the media are replete with claims that life began from non living

elements and scientists are close to figuring out exactly how. Is that accurate? In

2017 a “new” study(3) out of Canada is suggesting that life on earth came from

space. Well, seeding from space (Panspermia) is an idea that dates back to the

1800s, but the study is enlightening.

The explicit inference is that life originated elsewhere in space. The implicit

inference is that life could not have originated on earth, or scientists would not be

looking to space for the answers. The laws of chemistry are universal, so if life

could not have arisen on earth from non living elements, it couldn’t anywhere.

Pag

e4

Suggesting that life came from space doesn’t answer the origin question; it just

pushes it further away.

Dr. James Tour Chemist Dr. James Tour is just one of many “educated” distinguished Christian scientists

with impeccable credentials. He is one of a very small number of chemists who can

build molecular machines (nonocars, cancer cell drill) from atoms, and is uniquely

qualified to speak about molecular/chemical evolution, because as he says, he

“builds molecules for a living”(James Tour “Talks Evolution”(4)).

Director NanoEngineering, Professor-Materials Science & NanoEngineering, organic and synthetic chemistry at Rice University,

Top ten cited chemist in the world, over 77,000 times (Google Scholar)

640 peer review publications, 120 patents,

Voted one of the 50 most influential scientists, scientist of the year

National Academy of Inventors inductee, NASA Space Act Award in 2008

Southern Chemist of the Year Award from ACS in 2005

Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005

In his lecture, “The Origin of Life: An inside Story”(4), Dr. Tour reveals a rare look

into current life origins, and evolutionary science scholarship.

After candid conversations with Nobel Prize winners, top chemists, National

Academy of Sciences members and evolutionary scientists, Tour says this;

“We have no idea how the molecules that compose living systems could

have been devised such that they would work in concert to fulfill biology’s

functions… Nobody has any idea on how this was done when using our

commonly understood mechanisms of chemical science. Those that say that

they understand are generally wholly uniformed regarding chemical

synthesis…

From a synthetic chemical perspective, neither I nor any of my

colleagues can fathom a prebiotic molecular route to construction of a

Pag

e5

complex system. We cannot even figure out the prebiotic routes to the basic

building blocks of life…Chemists are collectively bewildered… no chemists

understands prebiotic synthesis of the requisite building blocks let alone

assembly into a complex system.”(4)

The same bewilderment besets macroevolutionary science. Dr. Tour has been

unsuccessful in finding anyone who can explain the molecular pathways in which

major species changes (macroevolution) are accomplished. Minor variations

(microevolution) are well understood and not disputed by any Christian

scientists.(4)

It is interesting to note, that before biology can exist on earth, finely tuned

parameters of physics and chemistry have to already be in place, or life, planets,

stars and solar systems cannot exist.(13)

An Open Letter to My Colleagues: Life Should Not Exist.(14) [James Tour]

The Origin of the Universe

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a

superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and

biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to

put this conclusion almost beyond question.[Sir Fred Hoyle, Atheist, British

astrophysicist; Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections]

Does science know how the universe came into existence? Is there evidence that

makes a naturalistic process more reasonable than a designer?

For most of human history, it was believed that the universe was eternal, but

today it is universally accepted by scientists that the universe began to exist in the

finite past, it is called the Big Bang Theory.

Pag

e6

In May 2017, another study has confirmed to a startling degree of accuracy, a

prediction of Big Bang Theory. Deuterium, which has only recently been able

to be measured has been found to be bang on. The predicted quantity was

2.456 x 10 -5 and the actual number is 2.55.(5)

Interestingly, the bible stood alone for millennia claiming that the universe had a

beginning. So the question turns to what caused the universe to come into

existence? Did something cause it, or did nothing cause it?

Transcendent Cause Prior to the Big Bang nothing existed. It wasn’t that space was empty, there was no

space, and no time, no energy, no matter, absolutely nothing!

So the cause had to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immensely powerful,

beginningless and exceedingly intelligent. These are the core properties of God.

Cosmological and Ontological Arguments are linked below under Resources

One of the common arguments against design theory is the “who designed the

designer” question. This is fallacious and irrelevant.

The transcendent cause is itself uncaused. As in Aristotle’s “prime mover”-

‘that which moves without being moved’ (10)

It isn’t necessary to know the cause of something for it to exist

This question can also be turned around on its user, what caused the multiverse?

The atheist is replacing one ideologically objectionable transcendent cause for

another one.

Pag

e7

Universe Created Itself from Nothing The late distinguished professor Stephen Hawking was a brilliant and popular

mathematical physicist who authored a book titled “The Grand Design”. In his

book he famously made this claim;

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create

itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something

rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary

to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

This caught the eye of Cambridge professor of mathematics John Lennox, who in

an interview with Dr. Rice Broocks, expressed his confusion about the incoherency

of this statement. Lennox points out that;

Laws don’t create anything

Because there is something, (“a law of gravity”) the universe will create itself

out of nothing? (Flat Contradiction)

If the universe creates itself then it must already exist (The universe can and

will create itself)

Professor Lennox goes on to say;

“That just proves that nonsense remains nonsense even if spoken by a

very clever scientist”

A Universe from Nothing

The so-called multiverse theory is being popularized by astrophysicist Lawrence

Krauss in his book titled “A Universe from Nothing”(6). The idea of a multiverse is

not being recognized as a theory because there is no evidence for it; it is

undetectable, untestable, unobservable and has been criticized by leading atheist

astrophysicists, including Nobel Prize winning physicist David Gross(7), and a

former colleague of professor Stephen Hawking, Sir Roger Penrose(7)

Pag

e8

Astrophysicists and mathematicians say there are many problems with the

multiverse idea, the biggest is that there is no evidence of its existence.

Borde-Guth-Volenkin theorem has proven mathematically that generally, any

expanding universe must have a beginning. This includes multiverses.(8)

Professor Krauss outlines his idea in his book “A Universe from Nothing” with one

caveat; he redefines what “nothing” Krauss’ nothing is actually something, and he

has been widely rebuffed, even by atheist scientists.

Cosmological Fine Tuning

This is perhaps one of the strongest arguments for an intelligent creator.

Why are the cosmological constants and values so finely tuned as to allow for

intelligent life to arise? If any one of a dozen values were changed by the slightest

of degrees, life could not exist anywhere.(9)

There are only three possible explanations for the fine tuning

1. Necessity (false)

a. There is nothing in the laws or constants that require the values to be

what they are. The universe itself could exist with a wide range of

variables.

2. Brute Chance (highly unlikely)

a. Atheist professor Roger Penrose calculated the odds by chance of any

universe having the constants and values needed for life. 1 in 1010(123)

b. Multiverse: If there are an infinite number of universes, one would

have the fine tuning needed for life. As addressed above, this is not a

compelling explanation for many reasons;

lack of any evidence, not testability

incoherence of infinite numbers of anything

Pag

e9

even multiverses have a finite past so the infinite numbers needed are not

there

3. Intelligence

a. The fine tuning was an initial condition, present from the beginning

b. The best explanation for the cause and the fine tuning of the universe is

an intelligent transcendent being.

The conditions that make life possible in the universe were there from the

“moment of creation”, says agnostic astrophysicist Robert Jastrow.

“The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted

in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the

Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the

moment of the cosmic explosion. It was literally the moment of Creation.

...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that

to happen…

Although I am an agnostic, and not a believer, I still find much to

ponder…”(13)

The one thing that is clear is that no one has any idea how the universe began, or why it is

finely tuned. What is clear is that the materialistic naturalist has no grounds to ridicule the

design theorist. Both the materialist and design theorist appeal to an untestable, unobservable

metaphysical event. The design theorist makes inferences from the fine tuning and other data,

while the materialist just opposes design.

Biology

Biology is in the midst of a revolution. While Evolutionary scientists are busy

playing whack-a-mole as each new discovery conflicts with “previous

understanding”, design scientists and engineers are looking at biology in a

Pag

e10

completely new way. Some of the areas that scientists say point to an intelligent

agent and refute random chance are;

Digital properties of DNA (Information and programming)

ORFan genes

The prediction that so-called junk DNA has important function

Irreducible complexity

Molecular machines

the sudden appearance of animal forms without any precursors and the

absence of any transitional forms in the fossil record

Dr James Tour has said that evolutionary biologists have admitted to him that no

one knows the how macroevolution works on the molecular level. Many have said

there it is well understood, but no one has presented to him anything more than

assertions. They are stuck with him because as he says, no one should understand

evolution better than him because he makes molecules for a living(4).

Because Tour has not acquiesced to the consensus dogma, and has publically

expressed his skepticism that selection and mutation can produce new species, he

has been ostracized and excluded from scientific societies.

Species have distinct boundary limits according to microbiologist Michael Behe’s

book “Edge of Evolution”. A recent paper published in the prestigious Journal

Human Evolution agrees with Behe. The co-author of the paper David Thaler of the

University of Basel, in an interview at Physics.org said this;

“And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have

very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. "If

individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are

compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space." The absence of

"in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.”

[Physics.org]

Pag

e11

Dr. Michael Egnor is a Professor and Vice-Chairman of the Department of

Neurological Surgery, and Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Stony Brook in

New York. In an opinion piece he wrote for Forbes.com he expressed his opinion

that the evidence for of intelligent agency in biology is “unassailable”.

“But the evidence is unassailable. The most

reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity--the

genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells--is that they

were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that

unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and

function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate

codes and machines.”(11)

DNA DNA carries the instruction set, or sometimes called the blueprints for building

living things. Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft said this;

“DNA is like a computer program but far far more advanced than any

software every created.” [Gates, The Road Ahead, Penguin: London, Revised,

1996 p. 228]

In a 2003 paper in the Journal Nature this was said of DNA;

“The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly,

catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view

of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account

for much of its remarkable impact on science: its digital nature and its

complementarity” [The Digital Code of DNA; Leroy Hood, David Galas,

January 2003, Journal Nature]

In an interview Dr. Craig Venter (biochemist, geneticist and founder of the Institute

for Genomic Research who is credited with creating the first synthetic life) explains

Pag

e12

how he can use his computer to change the genetic coding of cells to create new

functions. He calls the genome the software of life (12).

Irreducible Complexity This is a term coined by Dr. Michael Behe. There are systems and structures in

living organisms that are made up of multiple interdependent parts which are all

needed for them to function. All the parts have to be in place all at the same time.

Evolution is a step by step undirected process that cannot see future function. If

something needs several coordinated steps to work, evolution cannot build it

because each step must benefit survival.

Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: A Response to Critics; by Michael Behe, Nov. 2016; https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/irreducible_com_1/

Irreducible Complexity; Discovery Institute, Pod Casts http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/tag/irreducible-complexity/

Problem 3: Step-by-Step Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Needed for Irreducible Complexity; Casey Luskin, Jan. 2015, https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_3_rando/

Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed; Dr.

Doug Axe; https://www.amazon.ca/Undeniable-Biology-Confirms-Intuition-

Designed/dp/0062349589

The Edge of Evolution: the search for the limits of Darwinism, Dr. Michael J.

Behe; https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe/

Biologists intuitively see design and have to consciously suppress the urge infer it.

Francis Crick, who was one of the scientists who elucidated the structure of DNA,

said this in 1990;

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not

designed, but rather evolved.” [What Mad Pursuit, p. 138 (1990)]

Pag

e13

Conclusion

Science cannot prove absolutely that God exists, nor does it need to. For anyone to

demand that level of proof before they will even consider design theory is not only

absurd it is untenable, even for naturalistic materialism.

The bottom line is that design theory carries with it philosophical baggage as well.

It’s not the data, or lack of it that is objectionable; it’s the idea God may exist.

On debate.org a question was asked, if God actually existed would you worship

him? 66% of respondents said

they would not. Though this is

not definitive, it may be

representative of why many

refuse to even acknowledge

compelling data for design.

Richard Dawkins is a leading

“new atheist” evolutionary

biologist. Based on his remarks

below, would you think he would

evaluate design suggesting data in a neutral and unbiased manor?

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant

character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving

control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic,

homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential,

megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” [“The God

Delusion”, by Richard Dawkins, Bantam Books, 2006]

The PEW research survey cited earlier, showed that 49%(2) of American scientists

are atheist. That would suggest that ½ of American scientists may be unwilling to

even consider design theory, despite any compelling data or logically sound

arguments?

Pag

e14

Design theorists are often met with a level of vitriol and condemnation that

betrays more than just scholarly opposition. Look at James Tour’s credentials; he

has been discriminated against simply for saying he is skeptical of the consensus

dogma until someone produces compelling data supporting it, as is expected in

any other scientific discipline.

When scientists frustrate evolutionists by refuting fallacious and contradictory

arguments, they’re told they just don’t understand how evolution works. They

can’t do that with Tour, and that is why he has been ostracized and excluded.

You don’t have to be intimidated by those who ridicule your beliefs in a designer.

When your professor tells you that evolution and origins science is well

understood, you now know it isn’t.

There are compelling reasons to argue there is a designer. When ridicule and Ad

hominem attacks make their appearance, you have left logic and reason, and

entered ideological dogmatism. You have won the argument.

ROMANS 1:20

“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 people are without excuse.”

God’s fingerprints are on everything he has created and scientists are finding

more of them as technology advances.

If God is in fact who he says he is, science will never be able to eliminate

the one who invented it.

Pag

e15

References

1. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Summary); 2. “12 Famous Scientists On The Possibility Of God”; By Carol Kuruvilla, HuffPost, Feb. 02,

2016, Updated April 11, 2017. Pew Research, Nov. 5, 2006, “Religion and Science in the United States”.

3. “Life on earth began in small ponds, McMaster University research suggests”; The Star, Canadian Press, Oct. 3, 2017

4. (www.jmtour.com), “The Origin of Life: An Inside Story”; Dr. James Tour Talks Evolution 5. Nucleosynthesis Predictions and High-Precision Deuterium Measurements; by Signe

Riemer-Sorensen, Espen Sem Jenssen, May 10, 2017, Cornell University Library, Journal ref: universe 2017,3(2),44; https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.03653

6. “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing”; Paperback – Jan 1 2013 by Lawrence M. Krauss (Author), Richard Dawkins

7. ASU Origins Project; Unbelievable with Justin Brierley, Sept. 2010, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCX0YzJ0a2I

8. Universe Today; www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/ Honesty, Transparency, Full Disclosure” and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem; Reasonable Faith.org, September, 23, 2013, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-theorem/

9. Taken from Robert J. Youtube channel; “The Fine Tuning of the Universe”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y57VOL5Jz7U

10. Aristotle’ identification of the Prime Mover as God; Cambridge.org, by Joseph G. Defilippo, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/classical-quarterly/article/aristotle-identification-of-the-prime-mover-as-god/C6ABF2206374E003566873F6A0467B95

11. “A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist”by Dr. Michael Egnor; Neurosurgeon, Professor of Neurological Surgery and Pediatrics, Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Forbes.com, Feb. 5 2009. https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/06/neurosurgeon-intelligent-design-opinions-darwin09_0205_michael_egnor.html#149d39f7469b

12. “Software of life”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msIRHgMzc5Y, “Immaculate Creation: birth of the first synthetic cell; by Ewen Callaway, New Scientist.com, May 2010

13. "Message from Professor Robert Jastrow"; LeaderU.com; 2002 14. An Open Letter to My Colleages; Dr. James Tour 15. Francis Bacon, 1561-1626; Princeton.edu

Pag

e16

Resources Robert J. Blog: https://theovercommer.wordpress.com/resources/

Robert J. YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNXj-

Ve7rwIqUDWnLvJsW7w

Cosmological / Ontological Arguments Cosmological Argument (video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0 Ontological First Cause Dr. William Lane Craig (video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msiZDJwtZ6E

Biology Dr. James Tour https://www.jmtour.com/

Signature in the Cell: Dr. Stephen C. Meyer http://www.signatureinthecell.com/

Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origins of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design; https://www.amazon.ca/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071483

Zombie Science; Dr. Jonathan Wells; http://www.discoveryinstitutepress.com/book/zombie/

Dr. Michael Behe

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (book)

The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (book)

Darwin’s Black Box (book)

Science and Human Origins: Dr. Doug Axe, Dr. Anne Gauger;

https://www.amazon.ca/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-

Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1530778026&sr=1-

3&dpID=410bs8M4LiL&preST=_SY264_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

Evolution News (EN) https://evolutionnews.org/

ID The Future Podcast https://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/

Biologic Institute http://www.biologicinstitute.org/archive/

o Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed (book)

Dr. Ann Gauger http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/tag/ann-gauger/

Molecular Biologist Jonathan Wells http://www.jonathanwells.org/

o Icons of Evolution (book)

o The Myth of Junk DNA (book)

Pag

e17

Science & God 10 Top Scientists on Science and Faith (video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8XmXSMxXHQ

The Veritas Forum (videos) YouTube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsJezu3tK45jPs0ywrq0S0Q

PhD Authors, Scientists, Speakers, Debaters

Professor John Lennox (mathematician)

Dr. William Lane Craig (cosmology, resurrection scholar)

Dr. James Tour (synthetic chemist, origin of life)

Dr. Daniel B. Wallace (manuscript expert

Dr. Gary Habermas (resurrection scholar)

Dr. Stephen Meyer (Philosopher of science, Intelligent Design)

Dr. Michael Behe (microbiologist)

Dr. Jonathan Wells (microbiologist)

Professor John Bloom (archaeology, physics)

Dr. Steven Collins (Archaeologist, Sodom & Gomorrah)

Dr. Ravi Zacharias (Science and God)

Dr. Darrell Bock (manuscripts, biblical scholar)

Dr. Douglas Axe (intelligent Design)