top of page

Chapter Six


Astronomical Science

Sooner or later we come to the topic as to when and how it all began. The universe, the laws that govern the universe, and the origins of life. Since the early 1900s, the main theory that has remained the top choice in explaining the origins of the universe is The Big Bang Theory. 

The Big Bang Theory, in simplistic terms, states that all past matter in our universe came into existence approximately 14 billion years ago when all matter was but a primordial soup made up primarily of energy. That energy condensed together into an extremely dense ball, creating such intense heat that this ball then exploded, hurling matter across a vast distance. After this explosion were times of cooling and reheating that caused the creation of quarks, atoms, neutrons, then stars and galaxies, and all the rest of the material that would then later produce life. Out of this chaos, we are told resulted in the production of the order in the universe we have today. 


Explain that one to a mother with three kids.

big bang.gif


So this sounds kind of sciency-like, however, we find that no logical answer is given as to where the material and gases originally came from that eventually produced the "Big Bang". This initial material just simply showed up. One obvious reason for this is that there is no explanation that can be provided. None that would make any sense.


Spontaneous generation, which refers to life from non-life, was offered as an explanation until Louis Pasteur disproved it through his research and experiments on pasteurization. This concept was laid to rest in 1859 and thrown on the waste pile with other debunked theories. However, scientists seem stuck with spontaneous generation as their only explanation for where the material came from. And from time to time revisit this idea with various twists. After all, what other option is there? Oh, yea, it was created.


That aside, based on this theory of swirling gases, spinning ever so tightly together that it eventually produce the Big Bang, it would seem reasonable that in hurling material across space to produce an orderly universe we would find the following to be true:


1. All planets should spin in the same direction. However, Pluto, Venus, and Uranus rotate backward.


2. All 54 moons in our solar system should revolve in the same direction. But, at least 6 revolve backward. Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons going in both directions.


3. No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of matter, space, or time. Since each is intimately related to or even defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one would also explain the origin of the others. None exists.


We only have two choices between two belief systems that require some faith. Either random evolutionary chance or an intelligent, purposeful design. 


In Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall) we have the following excerpt:


That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small-scale model of our solar system, which was to be put in a room in Newton's home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can imagine, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences. Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!" he exclaimed. "Who made it?" Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?" Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!" the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is!" Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way,  "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?


That was a powerful argument! What is your reply?

Earth is a very unique planet. There are factors that set Earth, as well as our solar system, apart from sustaining life. Our atmosphere is remarkable and unlike any other. A transparent canopy covering the earth, filled with a renewable supply of oxygen to sustain life dependent on it, and carbon dioxide and nitrogen are needed for the plants. It provides the necessary air pressure, and the outer shell of our ozone layer protects life from the harmful ultraviolet rays. It also contains a magnetic field that is generated by the spinning core at the center of our planet. This deflects damaging cosmic rays and solar winds. Add to this the shade supplied by our moving cloud cover, offering the delicate balance needed of just enough of the sunbathing that the earth's surface requires without overexposure.


To sustain a temperature conducive to life, our planet is at just the right distance from the sun. A 2% increase or decrease in the distance would destroy life on earth. Our planet is also tilted at just the right amount (23.5 degrees) to bathe the surface as it rotates. Any change in the degree of the tilt would destroy life. Let me interject here that our planet is suspended in space, held in place, and moved by invisible forces. That in itself is rather amazing. Any tiny variation of the sun with its solar bursts or the slightest bit of orbital warble brings with it global warming or cooling. These are natural events. Today, it is very chic to jump on the "global warming" bandwagon. Now renamed and repackaged as "climate change" for today's activists in light of the fact that they recognize there is actually cooling that transpires as well. So, this new branding covers any climate change that has been decidedly deemed as man-made. Therefore covering any type of abnormal changes in weather that quite frankly is bound to happen as it has in the past.  


The fact is, man can do very little about the sun's solar flares, the earth's orbital change, the inner earth's molten core radiating more or less heat, volcanic activity, and such. Variables that affect us. These natural occurrences have happened before in recorded and pre-recorded history where there were periods of an unusual rise in our temperature, or of a drop in temperature for extended periods of time.  

Now, I agree wholeheartedly that pollution is a moral issue. We are stewards of this planet and it behooves us to manage it wisely. Pollution does play a harmful role on health, water, and our air, but to suggest that man is the main cause of global warming is to be dishonest, no matter what the current spokesperson for the moment may say, or me for that matter. Do not just openly accept statements without verification. We need to educate ourselves.


We do happen to have a very unique moon as well. It is just the right distance away to help stabilize and maintain the earth's critical tilt. And along with the sun, the moon helps to regulate and maintain the tides of our oceans. A moon too far or too close, too big or too small would impact earth's tides. Tides that circulate our water system, sweep away waste, oxygenate the water, and aids in our delicate ecological environment. Our whole solar system seems to be made with precision. The size and location of each planet play a role in sustaining gravity, rotations, orbits, and the like.


Jupiter and Saturn are key to life on earth by acting like vacuum cleaners. With their strong gravitational pull, they intercept and gather harmful space debris that comes our way. They affect the course of asteroids and comets that enter our solar system to keep them at bay. Our sun is at the right distance to neither burn us alive nor put us into a deep freeze. It is the right size and composed of the right materials to be constant in its supply of light and heat. So many factors that allow for life. It is quite a balancing act that is in place. 

biosphere 2.jpg

On September 26, 1991, eight crew members consisting of four men, and four women, entered into what was called "Biosphere 2". This was a major undertaking that was designed to re-create the earth's ecosystem. It took seven years of planning and construction to build this experimental oasis at a cost of $150 million dollars. 

Within this massive enclosed facility, it had its own tropical rainforest, savanna, miniature ocean, desert, and beach. It included all that these "Biospherians" would need to produce their own food, take care of waste, oxygen, and everything else to sustain life. 


It was a valiant and noteworthy endeavor that captured the world's attention at the time. During its official run before becoming the tourist attraction that it is today, it achieved some valuable lessons. It also had its issues.

Biosphere 2 was meant to be a fully enclosed, self-sustaining environment separate from the outside world. However, its first attempt at this failed. Oxygen levels had dropped forcing the decision to pump outside air in. This compromised the mission. Although this was not the only thing that transpired in preventing this endeavor to claim success. The sealed door had to be opened to the outside world when one crew member had to be taken to the hospital after cutting her finger. However, the door was opened more than once. Food and supplies were brought in as well during the crew's stay. Other issues also plagued the project. Needless to say in the end it failed.  

What Biosphere 2 did reveal was how exact, intricate, and balanced the earth's ecosystem is. Even in our attempt to purposefully re-create the earth's ecosystem with all of our technology, abilities, existing materials, and know-how, we were still not able to produce what evolutionists say happened by chance.


I don't know, do you really buy that?  We need to think this through. Everything is so dependent on something else that it all would have had to come into being at about the same time for any of it to survive. Plants, insects, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water, wind, cloud cover, sun, exact orbits and rotation, distance, and location. The list goes on. What are the odds?

So, again we have two choices. Which of the two choices do you pick? Evolution's random chance or an intelligent, purposeful design?

chicken egg.jpg

One question that many are familiar with that initially can sound silly but is actually worth walking through as a valid question in this segment. The question is "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"


Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, once stated he thought he had finally reached an answer to this specific, troublesome question. What was his answer?... The egg. Why? Was it derived from testing, analysis, or observation? Of course not. His answer was that genetic material DOES NOT CHANGE during an animal's life (so much for evolution), therefore the first chicken must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg. Thus the living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into. Okay, well that points out several things.


First, genetics does not change, which means that evolution cannot take place. Thank you Professor for confirming what many of us have been stating. A cat will always be a cat, a dog will always be a dog, and that no mechanism for transitional processes exists. Mutations have never been shown to be viable.


Second, he did not solve the issue. Apply a little common sense here and think this through. How did the egg appear? What produced this first single egg? How did it come about? In fact, this applies to all creatures that hatch from an egg. Did the first eggs of every kind of life just form on their own? Would it not take both a male and a female developing at the same time in order to produce that first egg and perpetuate that species afterward? Or, a male in one egg and a female in another egg developing at the same time. This would mean that two eggs actually would have to come about at the same time. That doubles the odds. Or, if an egg can develop first on its own, why do we need both sexes after that then to continue creating eggs?


Once again common sense dictates that although it may be a wonderful exercise in philosophical musings, his personal preference for an answer isn't sound.


In classrooms everywhere, intimidation and sarcasm are used to knock down any challenge to the evolutionary theory. Any evidence, findings, discoveries, or information that repudiates or diminishes evolution is removed. Students and the public as a whole are not given all the information to make their own reasoned decisions and so it remains largely a one-sided affair.

Evolutionist's Quotes

I would like to offer a small portion of the many revealing quotes on evolution from those who support it. In doing so, I believe you will begin to see what is really the underlying motivation concerning evolution. The engine that drives this thing. It may be some dry reading but important to include:


Isaac Asimov, "What is Beyond the Universe?" Science Digest, vol. 69 (April 1974)


"If 0=(+1) + (-1), then something which is 0 might just as well become +1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of these globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it."


(The math is "fuzzy" but the answer is the same... nothing equals nothing, yet still trying to figure out how to get something.)


Geoffrey Burbidge, "Why Only One Big Bang?" Scientific American (February 1992)


"Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable assumptions. Indeed, Big Bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth... This situation is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the Big Bang model is seriously flawed... The Big Bang ultimately reflects some cosmologists' search for creation and for a beginning. That search properly lies in the realm of metaphysics, not science."

David Darling, "On Creating Something From Nothing" New Scientist, vol. 15 (September 1996)


"What is a big deal - the biggest deal of all - is how you get something out of nothing. Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either - despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. "In the beginning", they will say, "there was nothing - no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which ...." Whoa! Stop right there. Do you see what I mean? First, there is nothing, then there is something. and the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats... You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can affect a change from nothingness to somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining."


Professor Dr. Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life; More Questions Than Answers" Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4. Dose is Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University, West Germany


"Abstract. More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.... Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principle evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationship in modern cells came into existence... It appears that the field has now reached a stage of stalemate, a stage in which hypothetical arguments often dominate over facts based on experimentation or observation."


Caryl P. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970", American Scientist, vol. 59


"But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswerable. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier than that, how life itself originated on earth remains for the future to resolve... The fact that in all organisms living today the processes both of replication of the DNA and of the effective translation of its code require highly precise enzymes and that, at the same time the molecular structures of those same enzymes are precisely specified by the DNA itself, poses a remarkable evolutionary mystery... Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they are coordinated accurately for survival.


By a pre-Darwinian, this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation."


John Maddox, "The Genesis Code by Numbers", Nature, vol. 367 (1994)


"It is already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction but the embodiment of life's mechanisms; the consecutive triplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited but they also guide the construction of proteins... So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."


Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271 (1994)


"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."


George Wald, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life.


"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." (As previously state, they have no choice but to revisit this, even knowing it is impossible.)


Michael Denton, "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis (London; Burnett Books, 1985) Denton is a molecular biologist.


"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series... thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has a sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence... There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available one century ago it would have been seized upon with devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted."


Anonymous, "Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, vol. 294 (November 1981)


"The essence of his argument last week was that the information content of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 10 to the 40,000 power, representing the specificity with which some 2000 genes, each of which might be chosen from 10 to the 20th power nucleotide sequences of the appropriate length, might be defined. Evolutionary processes would, Hoyle said, require several Hubble times to yield such a result. The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a "tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein..." of adherents of biological evolution, Hoyle said he was at a loss to understand biologists widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious."


George Sim Johnston, "The Genesis Controversy", Crisis (May 1989)


"Many scientists would rather cling to Darwin's theory, in whatever baroque form, than face the implications of its demise. Darwin's scientific detractors, moreover, are generally reticent about taking their objections public for fear of being labeled "creationists". So the newspaper-reading public has not been let in on what the British scientific journal, Nature, recently called "the sharp dissent and frequently acrimonious debate" over evolutionary theory, while the armies of biology teachers, science writers, and public television wildlife hosts carry on as though there were no problems with Darwin at all."


H. Lipson, A Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980)


"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."


Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic) God and the Astronomers (1978)


"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."


Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics, "The Physics of Immortality," (New York, Doubleday, 1994)


"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics, as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."


If evolutionists themselves have been expressing major concerns and issues about the plausibility of evolution, then why the fierce defense of it? What better than to hear in their own words, their reasons:


C.D. Darlington, "Origin of Darwinism," Scientific American (May 1959) Darlington was at Oxford University.


"We owe it to [Darwin] that the world was brought to believe in evolution;...Here is a theory that released thinking men from the spell of superstition, one of the most overpowering that has enslaved mankind...We owe to the Origin of Species the overthrow of the myth of Creation."


George Sim Johnston, "The Genesis Controversy," Crisis (May 1989)


"In other words, it's natural selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground. This is why prominent Darwinists like G.G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection. To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is a design in nature - and hence a Designer."


Dr. Todd Scott, an immunologist at Kansas State, Nature (September 1999)


"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."


John Dunphy, "A Religion for a New Age," The Humanist, vol. 43


"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith; a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level - preschool daycare or large state university. The classroom must and will become the arena of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of "love thy neighbor" will finally be achieved."


George Wald, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, vol. 199


"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Louis Pasteur and others scientifically disproved spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter 120 years ago. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."


Richard G. Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist (February 1978)


"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble, you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death, if Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!"


D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University


"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly impossible."


We find an unmistakable, recurring theme among many supporters of the evolutionary worldview. That is the inability for scientists and individuals to accept anything, more specifically a Creator, outside of the realm and limitations of naturalism to explain creation, no matter how plausible. At the same time, they also have difficulty intellectually believing evolution is possible. Thus, a vehement rejection (for a variety of reasons, but mostly personal issues and philosophy with the existence of God) of the only other alternative that there is. That being the existence of a supreme being or deity that is outside of, and not subject to the prodding, poking, dissecting studies of man.


One of the causes for this is the prevalence of "anti-supernaturalism" among the sciences, as well as can be found in other fields, such as history. Anti-supernaturalism is the presupposition or disbelief in either God's existence or his intervention in the natural order of the universe. Therefore, a person who is already holding to such belief, having made up their mind before they even begin any investigative work, will automatically reject as invalid any evidence or facts that would support what they have already concluded as not possible. Being objectively crippled will consider any evidence or facts as either an anomaly or misinterpreted information.


Within this framework is a worldview that does not acknowledge that miracles are possible. That there is the supernatural that can affect natural laws. All that exists is the closed system in which we live. Seems so contrary to those who see the universe so huge and vast with so many mysteries to uncover, and yet, no room or place or possibility for God in or outside of it. So for those that already have their views settled beforehand, every cause must have a natural effect, or answer, for there can be no other explanation. No amount of evidence, facts, or verifiable history can be brought forth that will change their minds or convince them otherwise.


This disbelief specifically refers to the biblical creation model, as found in the Book of Genesis, and the God of the Bible. This is, by the way, universally held among evolutionists and scientists that support evolution. We find the focus of attack, ridicule, rejection, comments, and hatred is generally not toward any other work, religion, book, faith, philosophy, theology, theory, and scientific alternative other than specifically the Judeo/Christian perspective on the origins of life, as is taught, studied, believed and described in Genesis and throughout the Word of God. For it offers the only other sound and intelligently reasoned description of the beginning.


We have come to a point where we need to determine if we have achieved our initial reason for addressing the subjects of science and of evolution. I believe we have. That being whether:


1. Science has eliminated the possibility of God's existence.

2. Science has shown evolution to be factual and true.

3. Scientific evidence has discounted intelligent design

4. Whether we are able to continue our journey beyond this point.

We find that science is not able to answer how life from non-life could have occurred.


Science is not able to find any transitional fossils or evidence to suggest that macro-evolution ever occurred.


We see that science cannot explain why it was necessary for the sexes to come into existence. In how they even developed. Nor the immediate development to instinctively mate and procreate in order to continue the species after the very first generation.


We have learned through trying to re-create Earth's ecosystem with purposeful intent, that it is unlikely that evolution's theory of explaining this phenomenon could not have happened by chance.


We realize that there is just too much detail, complexity and design to have come out of chaos.

No adequate explanation, other than natural selection, for the most part, is provided to explain the development of languages, emotion, intellect, instinct, the ability to reason, and more. 

We learned that the genetic code determines an outcome. Meaning that a dog will never be anything other than a dog no matter how many millions of years go by. And, this would be the case for every living thing.

We have come to recognize that the theory of evolution is a belief system in which science is trying to validate but has not. 

We find ourselves coming up to the same fork in the road, concluding the same things, making the same statements, and coming up with the same results.


These are only a very, very small amount of things that we have learned in just this cursory study.  


I believe we have found that there exists enough evidence to cast a reasonable doubt with regard to evolution as being anything more than the theory that it is. And, that present facts have neither validated evolution nor invalidated the existence of a Creator. That there is enough sufficient evidence to conclude that there exist factors that are beyond the scope and limitations of naturalism's philosophy to either address or offer satisfactory answers while demonstrating a strong consideration for intelligent design.


The truth is, science has not demonstrated evolution as a fact, or that evolution actually ever occurred. Neither has it the ability to deny God's existence. Yet the reason many believe this to be the case is due in large part to three things:


First, the constant barrage of saying something long and loud enough for people to believe you. In this case, that macroevolution is real. 


Second, the general public's lack of being able to be exposed to all objective information to make up their own minds. 


Third, a willful choice to ignore and reject any possibility of God's existence.

The good news is, science is not the sole means by which we can examine, test, validate and confirm facts and information to get to the truth.  


When investigating an accident, homicide, or burglary, police officers use eyewitnesses to validate, confirm or deny what events took place. Eyewitnesses help establish the facts. The more eyewitnesses there are, the better the case they have and a fuller picture of what transpired. Any crime scene evidence is, of course, helpful. A confession is a cherry on the cake.


Archaeology is another excellent tool. By unearthing buried history archaeology opens the door to understanding events, people, places, past lifestyles, and so on. It can confirm information, stories, theories, and more.


Historians record what they have seen and heard that is substantiated by their investigation and observances. Each generation relies on historians to record their times for posterity. The more historical records that correlate with each other only strengthens the case for truth.


Drawings, carvings, writings, manuscripts, and pictures are other wonderful tools and can offer a wealth of information from which to draw. Discoverers log their findings, describing their surroundings and making notes of things of particular interest. These things help to give visual color to their words, experience and study.


First-hand knowledge and experience can help establish a fact, truth, or reality for an individual or group of people.


And we have logic, common sense, intuition, and our reasoning abilities to comprehend, evaluate and come to rational conclusions in directing us toward recognizing, understanding, and/or seeing the truth.


These are just some of the other practical tools that are utilized in determining facts, understanding history, gathering information, finding answers, or defining the truth. Tools we will add to our arsenal for opening faith's gateway and the path forward in our quest for answers on God and the spiritual dimension.


Having determined that the existence of God still remains plausible, and realizing that this subject is much larger than science can handle, or willing to even address, we will broaden our use of applicable tools that might assist us in our mapping out a course through the contentious region lying ahead in our pursuit in determining if God exists. 

bottom of page