Posts Tagged ‘science’

year_in_space_photo_gallery-0048dHoward A. Smith, a lecturer in the Harvard University Department of Astronomy and a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, penned an opinion piece for the Washington Post this past Thanksgiving break about how we are to be thankful for a not-so-obvious blessing: our place in the universe.  Here is a taste:


As we give thanks for our many obvious blessings, let’s reflect on a blessing that is less well known, a gift from modern astronomy: how we view ourselves.

There was a time, back when astronomy put Earth at the center of the universe, that we thought we were special. But after Copernicus kicked Earth off its pedestal, we decided we were cosmically inconsequential, partly because the universe is vast and about the same everywhere. Astronomer Carl Sagan put it this way: “We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star.” Stephen Hawking was even blunter: “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet.”

An objective look, however, at just two of the most dramatic discoveries of astronomy — big bang cosmology and planets around other stars (exoplanets) — suggests the opposite. We seem to be cosmically special, perhaps even unique — at least as far as we are likely to know for eons.

The fine-tuning argument has had a long career, but recently it has been receiving specialfortunte-unverse attention, not just by philosophers and theologians, but by scientists like Dr. Smith himself.  A recently produced book by Cambridge University Press was just released this month by Luke Barnes, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy who completed a PhD at the University of Cambridge, and Geraint F. Lewis, a Professor of Astrophysics at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy and head of the Gravitational Astrophysics Group, titled A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos that continues this long discussion about fine-tuning.  The foreword by Brian Schmidt of the Australian National University, Canberra, and Nobel Laureate in Physics describes the book:

My colleagues, Geraint and Luke, in A Fortunate Universe, take you on a tour of the Cosmos in all of its glory, and all of its mystery. You will see that humanity appears to be part of a remarkable set of circumstances involving a special time around a special planet, which orbits a special star, all within a specially constructed Universe. It is these set of conditions that have allowed humans to ponder our place in space and time. I have no idea why we are here, but I do know the Universe is beautiful. A Fortunate Universe captures the mysterious beauty of the Cosmos in a way that all can share.

William Lane Craig aptly concludes that the fine-tuning for life in the universe, that “the view that Christian theists have always held, that there is an intelligent designer of the universe, seems to make much more sense than the atheistic view that the universe just happens to be by chance fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision for the existence of intelligent life.”  Here is Craig’s animated video on the fine-tuning argument:


The fine-tuning for life is quickly becoming one of the most discussed arguments in science today.  Below are some resources related to the field of fine-tuning.


A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos by Luke Barnes and Geraint Lewis

“Humanity is Cosmically Special. Here’s How We Know” by Howard A Smith | Washington Post, Nov. 25 2016

William Lane Craig’s clearing house of resources for the Fine-Tuning Argument (videos, articles, etc.)

Luke Barnes Blog

Robin Collin’s Fine-Tuning Website

Several years ago astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay Richards wrote the book The Privileged Planet which was turned into a documentary here:



RICHARD DAWKINSRichard Dawkins misrepresents science according to a recent study.

Andrew Griffin of the Independent explains that “Most British scientists in a new study dislike Richard Dawkins, with some arguing that he misrepresents science and is misleading the public.”  One nonreligious professor of biology referred to him as a “fundamental atheist.”

Richard Dawkins is probably the most famous atheist today.  His book The God Delusion (2006) has sold over 3 million copies and has been translated into 35 languages.

The study in question was published in the Public Understanding of Science and was the findings of Religion Among Scientists in International Context (RASIC).  The study “include[d] a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the United Kingdom, 1,581 randomly sampled scientists participated in the survey, and 137 of them also participated in in-depth interviews” according to a Rice News article. The Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed, quarterly international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public according to its website.

One of the more interesting insights was that this study did not include Dawkins as part of the interview process.  The researchers didn’t ask about him.  Of the 137 British scientists interviewed 48 mentioned Dawkins. 80 percent of the  48 said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches.

Description from scientists on Dawkins and his work included:

  • A nonreligious physicist said that Dawkins is “much too strong about the way he denies religion”
  • A nonreligious biologist states that “He’s a fundamental atheist. He feels compelled to take the evidence way beyond that which other scientists would regard as possible.”
  • Another professor of biology commentated that Dawkins has “gone on a crusade, basically.  Although there is a lot of truth behind what he says, he does it in a way that I think is deliberately designed to alienate religious people.”

The common criticism, according to Griffin, “was that Dawkins was too strong in his criticism of religion.”

Not all are taking the criticisms of Dawkins seriously.

Sebastian Anthony at ARC Technica UK reports that a “spokesperson for the Centre of Inquiry, which is currently merging with Dawkins’ Foundation for Reason & Science, told the Independent that ‘It’s certainly not a breathtaking revelation that fewer than 40 scientists out of 137—culled from a pool of over 20,000—might not be fans of Professor Dawkins’ particular approach to science communication.”

Hermant Mehta at “The Friendly Atheist” blog on claimed that the study published by the Public Understanding of Science is bizarre and the conclusion is flimsy based on the methodology of the researchers.

But this is not the first time Richard Dawkins has come under criticism from scholars, scientists, and philosophers.

E. O. Wilson, a Harvard professor, criticized him in 2014 stating that Dawkins wasn’t a scientist at all, but a journalist.  Wilson declared that “There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research.”

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga’s review of Dawkins bestseller The God Delusion comments that, “Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he’s a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.”

Michael Ruse, atheist philosopher of biology at Florida State University, states that Dawkins The God Delusion made him ashamed to be an atheist.  Ruse discussed the trouble with Richard Dawkins in this short (6 min) video clip:


Of worthy note about the study is the fact that it did not ask questions about Dawkins, but those scientists interviewed mentioned him without prompting.

Critiques of Dawkins work can be found in proliferation:

Richard Dawkins’ Argument for Atheism in The God Delusion” by William Lane Craig at | April 23, 2007

Dawkins is Not Great” by Bo Seo at The Harvard Crimson | Nov. 21, 2013

The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins,” by John Gray at The New Republic | Oct 2, 2014

The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine by Alister and Joanna McGrath (InterVarsity, 2007)

Dawkins’ God: From the Selfish Gene to the God Delusion by Alister McGrath (Wiley, 2015)

On Dawkins’ Atheism: A Response” by Gary Gutting at The New York Times | Aug 11, 2010

The Dawkins Confusion” by Alvin Plantinga at Books and Culture | Mar/Arp 2007


British Scientists Don’t Like Richard Dawkins: finds study that didn’t even ask questions about Richard Dawkins,” by Andrew Griffin The Independent | Oct. 31, 2016

Richard Dawkins is Bad for Science, Say Researchers Predisposed to Not Liking Him,” by Hemant Mehta Patheos | Oct 31, 2016

Most British Scientists Cited in Study Feel Richard Dawkins’ Work Misrepresents Science,” by Amy McCaig Rice News | Oct. 31, 2016

Richard Dawkins Gives Science a Bad Name, Says Fellow UK Scientists,” by Sebastian Anthony ARC Technica UK | Nov. 1, 2016

Responding to Richard: Celebrity and (Mis)Representation of Science,” by David R. Johnson, et. al. Public Understanding of Science | Oct. 10, 2016

    Other post from the Science Series from this blog include:

    f2-largeOne of the earliest manuscripts of the Old Testament was revealed by researchers at the University of Kentucky.  This scroll, which contains portions of the book of Leviticus, was discovered in 1970, but was unreadable because it suffered from fire damage 1,500 years ago.  Modern technology made it possible to scan and “virtually” unwrap it without actually touching it and destroying it in its fragile state.  This video from the Wall Street Journal explains the process:


    Emanuel Tov of the Hebrew University explains its importance,”For scholars, the scroll brings the good news that the text has not changed for 2,000 years.”

    Breaking News Israel reports:

    This week, incredible cutting-edge technology allowed archaeologists to finally read the contents of a burned 1,500-year-old scroll found near the Dead Sea in 1970. The remarkable discovery of verses from the Book of Leviticus, which matched, letter for letter, the Hebrew text still in use today, is the first instance of one of the Five Books of Moses ever found in a Holy Ark.

    On Wednesday, researchers in Kentucky and Jerusalem announced in the Science Advances journal the success of new technology called ‘virtual unwrapping’. A complicated and difficult process based on the technology used in medical CT scans, researchers said it “represents a significant leap forward in the field of manuscript recovery, conservation, and analysis”.

    The technique allowed scientists to read the Ein Gedi Scroll, a charred, ancient parchment discovered in an ancient destroyed synagogue on the shores of the Dead Sea more than forty years ago which has sat on a shelf, untouchable and indecipherable, ever since.

    The scroll contains the first eight verses of Leviticus and dates from either the 1st or 2nd century CE and when compared to the Torah used today it is identical.  This is the earliest discovery of an Old Testament manuscript since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.


    “Researchers Reconstruct Early Version of Old Testament Text From Burned Scroll,” Robert Lee Hotz | Wall Street Journal, Sept 21, 2016

    “Burned Mystery Scroll Digitally Unraveled Reveals Bible Unchanged for 2,000 Years,” Adam Berkowitz | Breaking Israel News, Sept 21, 2016

    “Computers Decipher Burnt Scroll Found in Ancient Holy Ark,” Michael Greshko | National Geographic,  Sept 21, 2016

    “Scientists Use ‘Virtual Unwrapping’ to Read Ancient Biblical Scroll Reduced to ‘Lump of Coal’ “ Ian Sample | The Guardian, Sept 22, 2016

    “From Damage to Discovery Via Virtual Unwrapping,” William B Seales, et. al | Science Advances, Sept 21, 2016


    Post about other biblical archaeological discoveries from this blog include:

    City of Geza

    Philistine Cemetery

    Ancient Shopping List Provides Evidence of When Bible Was Written

    Hezekiah Bulla




    The supposed conflict between science and religion that proliferates culture today possibly originated with the depiction of the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial in the movie Inherit the Wind (1960).  Thinking back to you high school American history class, one event that is usually taught is the infamous Scopes Trial in which John Scopes was found guilty for teaching evolution in a Dayton, Tennessee classroom.  While this event is worthy of study for political reasons as well as educational policy, my focus in this post is the propaganda that the movie heaved upon cultural understanding of the relationship between science and religion.

    Clarence Darrow

    A young teacher by the name of John T. Scopes was accused of teaching evolution in a state-funded school which allegedly violated the Butler Act of 1925 in Tennessee which prohibited the teaching of evolution.  Defended by the well-known trial lawyer Clarence Darrow, Scopes was prosecuted by the three-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan.  The atmosphere in Dayton, TN that hot summer of 1925 was electric like a sideshow carnival.  Hundreds reporters descended upon the town, including H. L. Mencken of the Baltimore Evening Sun.  Articles for newspaper and magazines produced countless articles and cartoons on the trial.  Stories were wired by telegraph as far as Europe and Australia. This was the first American trial that was broadcast by radio, while thousands of people crowded the festival like town of Dayton.  Scopes was found guilty and was fined a $100.

    William Jennings Bryan

    While the Scopes Trial in its own right was newsworthy, playwrights Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee created it for Broadway in 1955 as Inherit the Wind.  It was later produced as a theatrical film in 1960 (directed by Stanley Kramer with Oscar winning performers Spencer Tracy and Fredric Marchand along with Gene Kelly) and subsequently in 1965, 1988, and 1999 for television.  Kevin Spacy and David Troughton starred in a 2009 revival at The Old Vic in London.


    Stanley Kramer (dir.) receiving an award, 1960 Berlin Film Festival, Inherit the Wind

    The 1960 film has by far been the most influential iteration of the Scopes Trial and unfortunately so.  A much more faithful depiction of the trial is Edward J. Larson’s Pulitzer Prize winning history book Summer of the Gods.


    Randall Balmer of Dartmouth writing a review of Summer of the Gods states that:


    Although Bryan has generally been regarded as the loser in Dayton, a hopeless throwback to the fundamentalist, antediluvian past, not all contemporaries saw it that way. “At the time,” Larson says, “in sharp contrast with later legends about the Scopes trial, no one saw the episode as a decisive triumph for the defense” (206). Only later, beginning with the 1931 publication of Frederick Lewis Allen’s Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the Nineteen-Twenties, did the Scopes trial begin to succumb to caricature, a caricature that was shamelessly perpetuated by Richard Hofstader in The American Political Tradition (1948) and Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1963). The main culprit, however, was the play Inherit the Wind, which appeared in 1960 and which, as Larson demonstrates, was intended not so much as a representation of the trial

    Balmer correctly pinpoints that Inherit the Wind was the “main culprit” for depicting the trial as an exaggeration to create a comic or grotesque effect.  Why should we be concerned with a film instead of the history.  Well, because of the influence movies have on culture.  For example, there are numerous lesson plans (here, here, here, and here) for high school students on the movie.   Just do simple Google search to see the plethora of lesson plans available for teachers of history, English, science, and humanities that utilize Inherit the Wind.  Thousands if not tens of thousands of students are exposed to the Scopes Trial via the movie every year.

    The problem is that the movie promotes the propaganda of the conflict thesis between science and religion that I have written on before (see here and here). Carol Iannone describes it aptly: “While Inherit the Wind remains faithful to the broad outlines of the historical events it portrays, it flagrantly distorts the details, and neither the fictionalized names nor the cover of artistic license can excuse what amounts to an ideologically motivated hoax.”

    History of the Film:

    Inherit the Wind film was a originally a theatrical play in 1955 by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee.  It was later produced into the well known film staring Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.  The movie was remade in 1999 starring Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott (it has several other television remakes as mentioned before).  The play, and later the movies, change the names of the actual people.  Here is a diagram to help with watching the movie.

    Role:                                     Movie Name:                                            Actual Name:
    Teacher                                 Bertrum T. Cates                                        John T. Scopes
    Prosecuting Attn.                    Matthew Harrison Brady                             William Jennings Bryan
    Defense Attn.                         Henry Drummond                                      Clarence Darrow
    Journalist                               E. K. Hornbeck                                          H. L. Mencken
    Town                                     Heavenly Hillsboro                                     Dayton, Tennessee


    C. S. Lewis, professor of Oxford and later Cambridge, has written over thirty books and selling over 200 million.  I found a series of short documentaries on Lewis dealing with science.  It is based on the book The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society.

    Here is a three part series on C. S. Lewis in dialogue with Scientism, Evolution, and Intelligent Design.

    Part One: C. S. Lewis and Scientism

    Scientism is the view that we should believe only what can be proven scientifically.  More than a half century ago, famed writer C.S. Lewis warned about how science (a good thing) could be twisted in order to attack religion, undermine ethics, and limit human freedom. Scholars explore Lewis’s prophetic warnings about the abuse of science and how Lewis’s concerns are increasingly relevant for us today (31 minutes):

    Part Two: C. S. Lewis and Evolution

    This 23 minute documentary examines the evolution (pun intended) of Lewis’s views on orthodox Darwinian theory from his time as a college undergraduate to his death in 1963:

    Part Three: C. S. Lewis and Intelligent Design

    Lewis is best known for his magical stories about Narnia, but this 16 minute documentary explores his life-long struggle to find intelligent design in a world filled with pain:

    This is an article by my good friend Allen Hainline.  He is a summa cum laude graduate in physics from the University of Texas at Austin and has a Masters degree in Systems and Software Engineering from the University of Texas Continuing Engineering Studies and also later taught in the program for several years.  Over at (the apologetics site of Frank Turek) Allen has Cross Examined - Christian Apologetic Ministry | Frank Turek | Christian Apologetics | Christian Apologetics Speakersdone a series of posts related to science and fine-tuning for life.  They are definitely worth the read.  His latest is on the false notion that belief in God is a science stopper.  Here is a quick taste:

    I’d like to call attention to a couple of excellent blogs by Luke Barnes correcting some historical blunders that Neil deGrasse Tyson made. Tyson argued that Newton failed to discover the stability of the solar system due to blinders that resulted from his belief in God. Here are links to Part 1 and Part 2 of the blogs by Barnes, a cosmologist from Australia.

    I had recognized historical misrepresentations by Tyson in the Cosmos series such as that Giordano Bruno was a martyr for science and that Galileo went to jail for his scientific beliefs[1] but I wasn’t aware of the broader story behind this famous interaction between Laplace and Napole0n. You really need to read Barnes’s blogs for the details but in a nutshell the story is that Napolean upon reading physicist Pierre-Simon Laplace’s writings about the physics of the solar system asked why they never mentioned a Creator. Laplace replied that “Sir, I had no need of that hypothesis.” Also, as Barnes summarizes: “Tyson claims that Newton (1642-1727) should have discovered what Laplace (1749-1827) did – that the combined pull of the planets on each other do not destabilise their orbits – but was hamstrung by his theism.” Tyson wonders why Newton didn’t discover the stability of the solar system but inserted God as a means of intervening to keep things stable:

    What concerns me is, even if you’re as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God, and then your discovery stops. It just stops. You’re no good any more for advancing that frontier. You’re waiting for someone to come behind you who doesn’t have God on the brain and who says “that’s a really cool problem, I want to solve it.” And they come in and solve it.”

    Barnes points out several problems with Tyson’s claims:

    • This story may have never actually happened – the case for its historicity is somewhat weak as Laplace himself denied it and the earliest reports about the meeting are relatively late.

    The other problems with Tyson’s claims can be found by linking over to the post.  Allen Hainline runs a college ministry at the University of Texas at Dallas that I am privileged to speak at ever so often.  It is part of the Reasonable Faith chapters of William Lane Craig’s ministry.  Information can be found at Reasonable Faith University of Texas at Dallas (RF UTD) which usually meets every Thursday night at 7 PM in the campus library.  Just this year they have had J. Warner Wallace  (former cold-case detective), Dr. Frank Turek,(apologist at, Dr. Ray Bohlin (a molecular and cell biologist), and Dr. Michael Strauss.  (professor of physics at University of Oklahoma).

    This video is a debate Allen Hainline had with Lydia Allen at the BBC:


    Christianity Today article reports on Alister McGrath’s lecture at Baylor University.  McGrath holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford.  A prolific author who holds three doctoral degrees in both science, theology, and intellectual history all from Oxford University, McGrath has explored and explained the relationship between science and religion (and has the credentials to do so expertly).

    A taste of the article:

    Atheism is in decline and will be trumped by faith, the professor of science and religion at the University of Oxford has said.

    Professor Alister McGrath made his predictions during the annual Parchman Lectures at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary, the Baptist Standard reports. The academic, who has degrees in molecular biology, theology and intellectual history, spoke on “why faith makes sense: exploring the rationality of Christianity.”

    McGrath said he was an atheist as a young man, but faith makes greater sense of reality and transcends reason, which is insufficient for understanding the world.

    “New Atheism ridicules the ‘irrationality of faith,'” said McGrath, who has debated New Atheist icons such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. “But it’s in decline, because it’s stale, dull and incredible. It provides unsatisfactory answers to ultimate questions. People want to know more.”

    His most recent book, The Big Question: Why We Can’t Stop Talking About Science, Faith, and God is now available.  Amazon describes it:

    Alister McGrath’s The Big Question is an accessible, engaging account of how science relates to faith, exploring how the working methods and assumptions of the natural sciences can be theologically useful. McGrath uses stories and analogies, as well as personal accounts, in order to help readers understand the scientific and theological points he makes, and grasp their deeper significance. An extremely accomplished scientist and scholar, McGrath criticizes the evangelism of the New Atheists and paves a logical well-argued road to the compatibility between science and faith.

    Some of his main discussion points include:
    1. There is much more convergence between science and faith than is usually appreciated
    2. How the three great models of scientific explanation can be adapted to religious belief
    3. Belief in God provides a ‘big picture’ of reality, making sense of science’s successes

    Here is a lecture McGrath did on “The Bankruptcy of Scientific Atheism”:


    A much shorter clip of McGrath:


    Screen Shot 2015-09-28 at 2.02.04 PMLawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist and cosmologist at Arizona State University,  penned an article with The New Yorker.  It is provocatively titled “All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists.”  Not just an atheist, but a militant atheist.  Krauss, has risen in fame in the past few years, penning such books at The Physics of Star Trek and The Universe From Nothing. In an interview with Sam Harris, he describes himself as “as an anti-theist rather than an atheist.”  Krauss has had multiple debates with William Lane Craig here in the United States as well as in Australia (here and here and here).  He even did a movie with Richard Dawkins titled The Unbelievers. Dr. Craig did a series of podcasts commenting on the film.

    In his September 8 article in The New Yorker, Krauss claims that “it’s inevitable that [science] draws people away from religion.”  Oddly enough he just merely asserts this claim without any evidence or argument.  Are we to just believe him on blind faith.  If science inevitably draws people away from religion how does he explain Francis Collins, Sarah Salviander, John Lennox, Neil Shenvi, Ray Bohlin, Michael Strauss, John Polkinghorne, or Alister McGrath.  Or how the book True Scientists, True Faith explores how twenty of the world’s leading scientists explain how their science enhances their faith and their faith undergirds their science.

    Even more oddly is his focus in the article on issues that have nothing to do with science at all.  In eleven full paragraphs a total of seven were on social issues like Kim Davis, Hobby Lobby, the shame people feel for questioning their parents faith, and Planned Parenthood.  As Edward Feser says in his article Krauss discusses “matters of public controversy entirely irrelevant to either science or the question of God’s existence.”

    He surely has a right to express his opinion on issues entirely outside his domain of expertise, but they carry no more weight as a business student has in expressing his views on the background radiation in the cosmos.  When he does he reveals aptly how sophomoric his reasoning is on the issue of God and science.  As Plantinga said about Dawkins and his book The God Delusion I believe the comments apply to Krauss as well:

    Dawkins [and Krauss] is not a philosopher (he’s a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune [i.e., naive, simplistic, and superficial]. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.

    Below are some articles that react to Krauss:

    “Scientists Should Tell Lawrence Krauss to Shut Up Already” by Edward Feser in Public Discourse The Witherspoon Institute, Sept. 28, 2015.

    Screen Shot 2015-09-28 at 12.26.07 PM

    Feser is as entertaining as he is educational.  A partial excerpt:

    The closest Krauss comes to justifying his thesis is in the following passage:

    science is an atheistic enterprise. “My practice as a scientist is atheistic,” the biologist J.B.S. Haldane wrote, in 1934. “That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career.” . . . In my more than thirty years as a practicing physicist, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned in a scientific meeting. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature . . .

    Is this a good argument? Only if this parallel piece of “reasoning” is also a good argument:

    Checkers is an atheistic enterprise. My practice as a checkers player is atheistic. That is to say, when I move a game piece across the board, I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my career as a checkers champ. In my more than thirty years as a checkers player, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned at a checkers tournament. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of the game.

    So, it isn’t just science—even checkers proves atheism! Who knew?

    “Why Can’t These Guys Stay on Topic? Or Read?” by Edward Feser at Edward Feser Oct 4, 2015 – Here Feser responds to some criticisms of his critique of Krauss.


    undeniableI had a former student who went to Harvard University several years back who returned an atheist.  I asked what evidence did he find that showed Christianity to be false.  He informed me that in his biology class he was taught that scientists were able to produce life from non-life in laboratory conditions.  That has nothing to do with Jesus’ existence, his death, or his resurrection, but nevertheless, some people think evolution disproves God.  I am not sure how, but there you have it. Nevertheless I continued the conversation to see where it would lead.  Now, I am no Ivy league graduate, so I was very interested to see what a cutting edge research university had turned up.  To my utter surprise he related the Stanley Miller-Urey experiment.


    An Ivy league school was teaching that the 1950s Miller-Urey experiment is our best evidence that nature can produce life from non-life.  Now, I have just finished paying taxes and all the Ivy League schools receive government funding, which in short means I pay for an Ivy league school to teach an out-of-date and defunct experiment to our nations leading students!  Pardon me for being a little upset, but give me a break.  I would expect just a little bit more from a leading institution such as Harvard.

    Bill Nye, who starred in the PBS series “Bill Nye the Science Guy” in the 90s, has recently published a book on evolution and guess what it includes.  You guessed right: the Miller-Urey experiment.  For those not in the know, the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted at the University of Chicago in millerurey1952 in which they simulated what they believed to be the early conditions of earth and provided an electrical impulse to produce amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are the building blocks of life.  One simple problem: those conditions simulated in the experiment did not resemble the early conditions of earth.  As Casey Luskin explains in a Stream article: “Nye maintains that the famous Miller-Urey experiments ‘simulate[d] the conditions on earth in primordial times,’ and ‘produced the natural amino acids.’ Yet the Miller-Urey experiments did not accurately simulate the earth’s early atmosphere. An article in Science explains why the experiments are irrelevant: ‘the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey situation.’ ”  Luskin goes on to enumerate other pseudo-science claims in Nye’s book including the 1% myth and the TIktaalik “fisapod” as a transitional fossil and the suboptimal design of the human eye.

    The MIller-Urey experiment is a 60+ year old experiment that is defunct and discredited.  Schools, textbooks, and universities need to give this one up.  The origins of life remains a mystery.  In fact, the origins of life studies are so desperate they are asserting a theory called panspermia, which is the idea that extraterrestrial life has deposited the first life on earth.  Sounds more like science fiction than science.


    “Does Peer-Reviewed Science Support Bill Nye’s Attempt to Prove Materialism” at

    “Real Science vs. Bill Nye’s Undeniable” Casey Luskin at The Stream

    “Biology Textbooks Get It Wrong on LIfe’s Origin” by Dr. Fazale Rana at Reasons to Believe

    “Psst! Don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began” by February 28, 2011 Scientific American

    “How Did Life Begin?” by at Universe Today

    “How Did Life Start On Earth?” in Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network

    BN-GE020_EDPHow_M_20141225105536Wall Street Journal’s most popular article in its history is how science is making the case for God, not against.  Eric Metaxas published this on Christmas day 2014 and has received more hits than any other article on line for the WSJ.

    William Lane Craig did a podcast over the article because of its popularity.  He commented on its influence and the science behind it.

    All of these are well worth the viewing, reading, and listening.

    It has been made into a video (5:43 minute long) by Prager University:

    In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

    Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

    With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

    What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

    Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

    As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

    Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

    Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

    There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

    Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

    Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

    Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

    The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

    Mr. Metaxas is the author, most recently, of “Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life” (Dutton Adult, 2014).