Are Science and Religion Opposed?

We hear this claim all the time from the new atheist crowd.  So, is it true?  The idea that science and religion are opposed is absolutely ludicrous. However, the religion of atheism is definitely opposed to science. And for obvious reasons.

Something far too many people, including an embarrassing number of PhD scientists, are woefully ignorant of the fact that all science is founded upon philosophical and religious assumptions. Atheism provides no metaphysical assumptions upon which any science at all can be rightfully rooted.

FACT: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Walter Reed, Dmitri Mendeleev, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Mendel, Marconi, world leader in sickle cell anemia research, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Werner von Braun, Pupin, Walter Lammerts, AE Wilder Smith – with 3 earned doctorates in science! Raymond Damadian Inventer of the MRI,  … and on and on the list goes … were all men of very strong religious beliefs. Indeed, they were all theists and creationists and IDists.

FACT: Modern science and the modern scientific method were founded and established by creationists, not merely religious people but creationists.

Thus the exceedingly foolish claim of the new atheists, that science and religion are somehow opposed, and that one must choose one or the other to establish ones’ facts, is simply stunningly wrong. That claim means that the people who started modern science were the same people whose beliefs opposed science. So what do the atheist do in response to the historical facts? They pretend that somehow, these creationists, these deeply religious people who founded modern science, did so without any reference to their beliefs, that their science had nothing to do with what they believed. And of course, that is more utter nonsense.

FACT: The founders of modern science rooted that science in their theism.  As C.S. Lewis so rightly stated,

“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.” – M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.

And as even atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse wrote,

“Most people think that science and religion are, and necessarily must be, in conflict. In fact, this ‘warfare’ metaphor, so beloved of nineteenth-century rationalists, has only a tenuous application to reality. For most of the history of Christianity; it was the Church that was the home of science.” – p. 671 in Ruse, Michael Introduction to Part X (Creationism) in The philosophy of biology edited by David L. Hull and Michael Ruse. 1998

In fact, virtually all the historical experts agree on the fact that it was withing the Christianity that modern science was founded and grew. Indeed, a fact that ought to be disturbing for atheists, but obviously isn’t because their ignorance of the history of science is so profound, is that virtually NO atheists were involved in the establishing of modern science. And for good reason.  Atheism does not allow for any view of the world that includes a reason to believe that law, order and comprehensibility ought to characterize the universe.  This fact has been discussed in great detail in the philosophy of science by people like Rodney Stark in his book, “For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery”.

Or even Loren Eiseley who wrote,

‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’ – Eiseley, L., Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It, Doubleday, Anchor, New York, 1961

And distinguished University Professor at Seton Hall University, in South Orange, New Jersey, Stanley Jaki, a leading contributor to the philosophy and the history of science wrote,

“The scientific quest found fertile soil only when this faith in a personal, rational Creator had truly permeated a whole culture, beginning with the centuries of the High Middle Ages. It was that faith which provided, in sufficient measure, confidence in the rationality of the universe, trust in progress, and appreciation of the quantitative method, all indispensable ingredients of the scientific quest.” — Jaki, Stanley L., Creation and Science (1974)

“The birth of science came only when the seeds of science were planted in a soil which Christian faith in God made receptive to natural theology and to the epistemology implied in it. The transition from that first viable birth to maturity was made neither in the name of Baconian empiricism nor in the name of Cartesian rationalism. The transition was made in a perspective adopted by Newton, chiefly responsible for completing that transition. The next two centuries saw the rise of philosophical movements, all hostile to natural theology. Whatever lip service to science, they all posed a threat to it. The blows they aimed at man’s knowledge of God were as many blows a knowledge, at science, and at the rationality of the universe. All those philosophical movements from Hume to Mach also meant an explicit endorsement of the idea of eternal returns, an idea which from the viewpoint of science acted as the chief road into its great historical blind alleys.” – S. Jaki, The Road of Science and the Ways to God, p. 160

Dr. Ronald Numbers, Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison stated,

“The greatest myth in the history of science and religion holds that they have been in a state of constant conflict. No one bears more responsibility for promoting this notion than two nineteenth-century American polemicists: Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918) and John William Draper (1811-1882)… Historians of science have known for years that White’s and Draper’s accounts are more propaganda than history.” (Galileo Goes to Jail. pg.1,2,6

Indeed, White is one of the principle characters responsible for the lies and false ideas that have spread opposing science and religion. Again, there were virtually no atheists involved in the founding of modern science. Atheism offers no grounds for any belief in any kind of science whatsoever. Atheism has no reason to believe the universe is ordered and understandable.

FACT: 65% of all Nobels were won by Christians.

Worse still, the Christian founders of modern science managed to open the world and change world history by developing a method of inquiry into the natural world based on that which is allegedly “diametrically opposed” to everything they believed! Thus making the founding of modern science a MIRACLE.

The ignorance and stupidity of claiming science and religion are opposed, is thus revealed to be simply astonishing.



Abiogenesis is impossible

Abiogenesis is basically the belief that life arose from non-life through some unknown, theoritcal, hypothetical, unobservable, untestable and unfalsifiable chemical process.  I call it a belief  because it certainly isn’t science or scientific in any way at all.

World renown scientist, synthetic organic chemist, James Tour refutes every idea that the materialists and evolutionists have come up with that attempts to turn rocks into life by magic. In this lecture video,

Dr. Tour makes it abundantly clear why abiogenesis does not and cannot ever explain the origin of life.

I have always thought that abiogenesis was nothing more than yet another lame attempt by neo Darwinain fundamentalists, and other materialist evolutionists, to throw quack science smoke and mirrors at the world to try to fool us into believing that you can life from “the backs of crystals”, as Daniel Dennett so naively and ignorantly believes (without a shadow of evidence).  Abiogenesis is simply the old defunct “spontaneous generation” minus the spontaneous part. What a crock! And yet so many people have swallowed that pseudo-scientific codswallop!

It’s truly amazing to witness the mental twists, somersaults and pseudo-intellectual acrobatics that Darwinists and atheists will contort themselves into just to preach anything at all, no matter how ridiculous and risible, as long as it isn’t God.

Thank God it doesn’t work. It never has and never will. If you can prove that 1 + 1 can equal something other than 2, then maybe someday you’ll be able to show that an unguided, chance, material origin of life is possible, … in some other imaginary universe where 1 + 1 might = 3.5 for unknown and inexplicable (and dubious) reasons. Atheists are always inventing imaginary universes where their bland and naive dreams come true and nothing creates everything.



Who Invented the Macro vs Micro Evolution Terms?

Many times when discussing evolution with avid neo Darwinists online, I encounter the claim that “there’s no such thing as micro vs macro, they’re both the same, and it was dishonest creationists who invented the false distinction”. This is so common that I feel obliged to comment on it.

The reality is this:

“Yuri Filipchenko (Russian: Юрий Филипченко; sometimes spelled Philipchenko) (1882 — 1930) was a Russian entomologist who coined the terms microevolution and macroevolution, as well as the mentor of geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky”
– wikipedia

So there you have it. Macroevolution and microevolution are two terms coined by a Darwinian evolutionist.

Filipchenko was a Darwinist. Not a creationist. So this bogus claim by fervent Darwinians is just tragically ironic, hypocritical and based on their own willful ignorance. The worst is that the last time this false claim was handed to me I was the one treated as dishonest and worse for drawing the opponents’ attention to the fact that micro does not equal macro and macro is not extended micro. The real problem is all these deeply ignorant Darwinists running around parroting each other without ever bothering to verify their claims. I see this kind of mindless recitation of the Darwinian fundaementalist balony catechism constantly. They often act like mindless robots. Every time they stumble upon some statement from some equally clueless Darwinist site, they run with ball, going to the wrong end of the field and they inevitably score against themselves when better informed people catch them in their incompetence.

It is a sign of indoctrination, of brainwashing, when people do this automatic, verbatim, and thoughtless repetition of ubiquitous catch phrases and buzzwords. Indeed, as one physics professor confessed,

“And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.”
– Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

So he has no problem brainwashing his students?  Seriously? What is wrong with that person? I bet it’s hard to pronounce.

The following depicts how this really works.

Darwinists typically use a bait and switch tactic when attempting to convince people of their pet theory.  While using the word evolution as meaning changes in allele frequencies in a population over time, they will then switch to the major changes above the taxonomic Family level.  The unwary audience thus sees macro in their minds while the actual laboratory evidence that is seen is ever and always only small, trivial variation.  The two different terms exist because there is indeed a distinction, else why bother? What use would such distinctions be if there really were no distinction in reality?

Here I quote the late WllliamProvine,  Cornell University historian of science and evolutionary biologist, stated that

“[e]very assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false”:“1. natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . .
4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution.
5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution.
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.
8. definition of “species” was clear[–]the biological species concept of dobzhansky and mayr.
9. speciation was understood in principle.
10. evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life.

11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.
12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil organisms.
13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.”
– William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.

Notice point 7, which I emphasized with bold, capitalized text. Darwinists would do well to note every point there. No, my Darwinian friends, macro evolution is not a mere extension of microevolution.  Provine is not alone. Today dishonest Darwinists, attempting to perform one of their standard moves – moving the goalposts – have changed the definition of macroevolution so that it is in fact merely microevolution, occurring at the species level. By very definition, macroevolution cannot be mere species level evolution. Macro requires major changes, the creation of new taxonomic familes, not mere variation and adaptation. As Provine noted, the definition species isn’t even clear and speciation is not even fully understood!

“The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.” – Bert Thompson, Ph.D., microbiology.

“Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species. The decisive step in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations” (GOLDSCHMIDT 1940).

Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.
Andrew M. Simons, “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,”Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.

A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”

“The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution claims to be able to explain this type of evolution in terms of random mutations, Mendelian genetics, and natural selection. But even within the mechanistic framework of thought, it is by no means agreed that this type of small-scale or micro-evolution within a species can account for the origin of species themselves, or genera, families and higher taxonomic divisions. One school of thought holds that all large scale or macro-evolution can be explained in terms of long-continued processes of micro-evolution; the other school denies this, and postulates that major jumps occur suddenly in the course of evolution. But while opinions within mechanistic biology differ as to the relative importance of many small mutations or a few large ones in macroevolution, there is general agreement that these mutations are random, and that evolution can be explained by a combination of random mutation and natural selection. However, this theory can never be more than speculative.
The evidence for evolution, primarily provided by the Fossil Record, will always be open to a variety of interpretations. For example, opponents of the mechanistic theory can argue that evolutionary innovations are not entirely explicable in terms of chance events, but are due to the activity of a creative principle unrecognized by mechanistic science. Moreover, the selection pressures which arise from the behaviour and properties of living organisms themselves can be considered to depend on an inner organizing factor which is essentially non-mechanistic. Thus the problem of evolution cannot be solved conclusively.”
– Sheldrake R., “A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance,” [1981], Park Street Press: Rochester VT, 1995, reprint, p.24

Notice the dates on some of these statements. This is not new. So the question arises, “Why do so many Darwinists still persist in insisting that macro = extended micro?” And the answers to that are of a religious nature and due to gratuitous propaganda – read outright lying – spread by many in the Darwinian camp. Here is the standard taxonomy classification chart example.

Species is at the bottom! So how can these dishonest Darwinists claim that macroevolution occurs AT or above the species level? It’s ludicrous, because under that definition, micro and macro are occurring as exactly the same thing! No distinction. Even the logic is horrible.

As science philosopher, Michael Ruse wrote,

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” ~ Michael Ruse, How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000

Anyone who has had the displeasure of attempting to reason with staunch evolutionists knows all too well the religious zeal that characterizes the Darwinian fundamentalist today. Thus, giving credence to Ruse’s statement. A very honest and open comment indeed from an atheist evolutionist! The worst is that even in the face of testimony from highly regarded scientists in the evolutionism camp, they still cling tightly to their sacred creeds like the poor befuddled soul that clings to his seat on a falling aircraft, in desperation thinking it will save him.

Back when I was a flight instructor, I was flying an ultralight aicraft, with a student learning to fly.  On that day the lesson was stalls. Basic stalling of a fixed-wing aircraft is usually taught by means of cutting power and then pulling the back on the joy stick, thus raising the plane’s nose.  When the aircraft reaches about a 16 degree angle of attack, the wing is no longer able to create enough lift to keep the plane flying. Then the nose of the plane dips suddenly and radically downward.  It’s kind of like the sensation of falling in one of amusement park rides.  If the stall is done with lots of power on, the results are far more dramatic with a violent nose dive.

Ultralight aircraft – Eipper, MX2

Well, I was leading the student through his first stall, explaninig what I was doing and such until the nose was nicely up and the speed lowered to where the stall occurred and the nose of the plane dropped suddenly earthward.  The student was so frightened by the sudden drop and plunge towards dear mother earth (remember that this is an early ultralight aircraft where you’re basically sitting on a lawn chair, 2000 feet up, with no doors, no floor, right out in midair, strapped to a simple airframe, two wings and a small motor) that he panicked and grabbed onto one of the structural beams of the plane, holding on for dear life, with a face as white as snow.  I couldn’t help but chuckle a bit.  It seems that sometimes flight instructors have a  slight saddistic joy in seeing students turn white as ghosts – just like we did ourselves in the beginning. It kind of “smells like victory” and feels like conquest.

Back on the ground, I explained to the student that it was not a dangerous move and that clinging to structual compenent would never save him in a real fall, since he was hanging on to a part of the falling plane. It was a useless act. One of panic and not of intelligence.

Now this example is very similar to Darwinists who, even in the face of testimony from highly regarded scientists in the evolutionism camp (not creationists), still cling tightly to their doctrine like the poor befuddled student clinging to a falling aircraft, in desperation thinking it will save him.

It won’t. Macro is not an extrapolation of micro. Get over it Darwinists.





Intelligent Religion: it’s not a contradiction

The book “Intelligent Religion: it’s not a contradiction”, is available on Amazon:

Canadian site:
USA site:

Religion is blamed for almost everything wrong in the world these days. Is that justified? Religion has a very bad name but is that deserved? Sometimes it is, but only when referring to man-made, organized religion. Otherwise, everyone is inherently religious in the sense of having a worldview, a set of beleifs about “life, the universe and everything”, a set of moral principles and ideological convictions.

Is religion, in itselfm a human folly? Did man create God in his own image?
Or are religion, faith, spirituality as natural a phenomenon as breathing?

Is it all madness based on fairy tales and myths or something intelligent based on reality and facts?
I’ve offered concrete, well researched, logic, sciecne and history based answers in this book.

It’s full of great information for theistic apologists, skeptics looking for honest answers and even atheists ready to look honestly at the facts.
The information will understand much better the logical and simple explanations that will remove the confusion. The book covers, for example,

• Why the world has been religious since the dawn of time
• The true sources of what people think about it today, often without realizing it
• A simple and universal definition of what religion is that everyone can agree on
• The unavoidable relationship between politics and religion
• Why the creation of a completely secular society is impossible
• Logical and scientific evidence of the existence of a supreme being
• Why atheism can never be a substitute for real religion
• The function of humanitarian aid which must be a main function of any valid religion
• Has God really acted in human history?
• And more !

Chapter summary:

Chapter 1
What is religion, exactly?
Let’s be logical
A religion of love
Chapter 2
Religion and atheism
Does a universal morality exist?
Is atheism a religion?
Atheism is a belief
Atheism is concerned with the existence of God
Atheism contradicts itself
Real atheism or religion, you must choose
Chapter 3
If there is a God, Religion makes sense
Typical evidence of the existence of God
The cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
The argument based on information
Information and symbols
Genetics and algorithms
Genetics and arithmetic
Origin of life and evolution
The argument from morality
The error of relativism
Origin of the moral law
Other arguments
Evidence of the non-existence of God
Chapter 4Religion and politics? God forbid!
Wars of religion?
Is a purely secular government possible?
God and the State according to the Bible
Chapter 5
God and Religion in history: Divine interventions?
Joshua and the long day
The prayer of General Patton
Bullet-proof George Washington
The face of the Lamb
Life after death: Diane Komp , Carl Jung, Howard Storm and many others
Chapter 6
Religion and Education
Secular humanism
The hidden face of school programs
Chapter 7
Religion and Social Missions

Check it out, in either digital or hard copy. It’s priced low to make this ifnormation available to even the lowest budget.



No Creationist Scientists with Real Credentials?

I’ve been told that there are no creationist scientists with real credentials so many times I wish I had a buck for every one.

The truth is quite the contrary and atheist TV evangelists preaching, proselytizing and indoctrinating others with this kind of spurious codswallop ought to be severely reprimanded.

The truth about this is presented briefly here. It would take days and a load of space here to list every creationist scientist with earned degrees from reputable universities so this is a small sample.

Creationists developed and established the scientific method – not atheists.  Virtually no atheists were even involved. Historical fact.  Indeed, atheists, under atheist assumptions about the universe, could never have developed the method.  Why? Because they have no reason at all for believing in an ordered and comprehensible universe. Under atheism, the universe should be chaotic and incomprehensible. It is neither.

Bishop Robert Grosseteste, a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar Roger Bacon. Both predicted that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge–a result which followed.  Bacon especially enumerated the results, which included submarines and flying machines.

So the greatest scientists in past history, all creationists of some sort, did not believe the materialist definition of science.  How then can the atheists claim, as they ubiquitously do, that creationism or even mere intelligent design (which leaves the question of God and holy books out of the issues) will lead to the ruin of science when in fact all the great scientists that led us to where we are today were themselves creationists? Utterly ridiculous and in fact a downright evil lie.

Modern science was born and raised in theistic world views and would have never been born in atheism.  Modern science was cradled in Christianity and it is the environment of Christianity and theism that fueled and nurtured its birth and maturing. Not atheism.

Atheism has never brought any good to humanity whatsoever. In fact, quite the contrary with more than 170 million murders perpetrated by atheists under officially atheist governments in the 20th century alone.

“The founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view. I’m thinking of men like Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology); Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer); Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode); James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics); William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics); Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics); Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation); Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics); Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory).” … Gregor Mendel (genetics), Sir William Herschel (galactic astronomy), John Woodward (paleantology), Sir Humphrey Davy (thermokinetics), Lord John Rayleigh (dimensional analysis)….

The great christian (ex-atheist) philosopher and author C.S. Lewis said,

“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.” – C. S. Lewis on Mere Science  1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.

Atheism would never have given birth to modern science at all. It is perfectly at home with all kinds of  idiocy, superstition and irrational nonsense like “a universe from nothing”.

All the people in the above list were creationists and all scientists and responsible for virtually every convenience and health benefit you enjoy today including internet, cell phones, television, radio, flight, space flight, calculus, and on and on it goes.

And yet atheist fanatics are all running around slandering and whining against them and their followers and successors.

How about if we denied them access to everything that was invented or founded upon creationist science and inventions? No cell phones, no airplanes, no television, no radio, no computers, no penicillin, no flights to the moon, no lasers, masers or anything built on laser technology – and on and on the list goes.

The ironic thing is that all these irrational ignorant atheists these days, that think they’re so smart and highly educated, are virtually all educated in schools, colleges and universities founded by creationists : Yale, Princeton, Oberlin College, Harvard, Dartmouth, McGill, Laval, Oxford, Cambridge, McMaster, Cornell, and almost all the great universities of Europe and the West. Not to mention hundreds in Africa, South America and Indonesia where it is Christian missionaries that started the school systems there as well as the hospitals!

“According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005) a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prize).  Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics[8] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.

The three primary divisions of Christianity are Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates 32% have identified Protestant in its various forms (210 prize),[9] 20.3% were Christians (no information about their denominations) (133 prize),[9] (11.6%) have identified as Catholic[9] and (1.6%) have identified as Eastern Orthodox.

According to study that was done by University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998 found that 60% of Nobel prize laureates in physics from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background.

Alfred Nobel who established the prizes in 1895, through baptism and confirmation Alfred Nobel was Lutheran and he frequented regularly the Church of Sweden Abroad.

Christians make up over 33.2% of the worlds population and have earned 65.4% of Nobel prizes.”

Davis & Falconer, J.J. Thomson and the Discovery of the Electron
“The Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine 1904 Ivan Pavlov”. Nobelmedia. Retrieved 2 February 2012.
“Gov’t Rejects Newspaper Story”. The News 2014-05-07. Accessed 2014-05-09.
Martin 2008, p. 30
“Nobel Prize” (2007), in Encyclopædia Britannica, accessed 14 November 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online:
“All Nobel Laureates”. Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2010-03-01.
Baruch A. Shalev‏, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2003),Atlantic Publishers & Distributors , p.57: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religion Most 65.4% have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.
“Alfred Nobel, hans far och hans bröder”. March 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013. “(swe: Genom dop och konfirmation var Alfred Nobel lutheran -en: Alfred Nobel was through baptism and confirmation a Lutheran)”
33.2% of 6.7 billion world population (under the section ‘People’) “World”. CIA world facts.
“The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions”. March 2007. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
“Major Religions Ranked by Size”. Retrieved 2009-05-05.
ANALYSIS (2011-12-19). “Global Christianity”. Retrieved 2012-08-17.

Take Dr. AE Wilder Smith for example – a young earth creationist – with 3 earned PhDs :

AEWilder-Smith# Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)

# in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich

# D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)

# F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 “Golden Apple” awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.

# Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company

# Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford

# Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages

# NATO three-star general

How’s that for real credentials?

The list of theist and creationist scientists with real earned degrees is extremely long. The atheists, once again, are lying to you, and to themselves. All because of their own fanatical religious beliefs that impede them from acknowledging the facts.

 “Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.” – Larry Hatfield, “Educators Against Darwin”. Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96

And what of Copernicus, Galileo, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Godel, Marconi, Pupin, von Braun, … these were all men of strong religious beliefs. They were all theists and mostly full fledged creationists.

Next time you here an ignorant atheist tell you that there are no creationist scientists, or that religion makes people dumb or that Christianity is anti-science, point them to the historical FACTS, the schools, hospitals, charities, inventions, and the scientific method itself and tell them to get informed and get a proper education in the history of science.

The atheists have done nothing but cripple the scientific method with their groundless, a priori insistence that only the natural can explain the natural. And how exactly, do they know this? They don’t. That claim is a metaphysical, materialist presumption, and total bollocks. For if you cannot see beyond the material world how in the world can you predicate, with embarrassing certitude as atheists do, that there is nothing outside the material world?

Excluding ANY possibility from science is idiocy. Excluding metaphysical existences from science is nothing but a religious prejudice. We should always seek material explanations, but not where no such explanations suffice and design is the only “Occam’s Razor” answer possible. The beginning of the universe is precisely one such case.

Creationists number among the greatest scientific minds in all history. And today’s creationist scientists are very well educated in their scientific domains in major universities.  Don’t swallow the atheist propaganda, its pure bull.

What is Natural Selection Really?

Natural selection is the Darwinists main magic wand for the passing of life from some purely hypothetical first common ancestor, to man. By this “mechanism”, the Darwinian elite claim that all life on earth has come to be. Survival of the fittest, they used to call this.  They have attributed to natural selection all the power of a deity.

Natural selection is seen as a cornerstone piece within the whole “modern synthesis” framework.

Continue reading

Which Infers a Stable Universe, Atheism or Theism?

In my last article I discussed the “God of the gaps” accusation levied against creationists and IDists.  A “refutation” that is common all across the scope of Darwinian influenced minds.

I showed that, in fact, it is the Darwinists that use “gap” arguments, or arguments from ignorance and not the designists at all.

Now at the end of that article I quoted professor Richard Lewontin on his absolute adherence to materialism in all things “scientific”.

Here is the quote again, followed by my comments on the last sentence:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”  Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard University

Lewotin makes a perfectly foolish unthinking statement at the end when he says that appealing to an omnipotent deity allows that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured.  Really? Lewontin fails to see that this is perfectly true for atheism, not theism!

Under atheism there are no absolutes, there is no absolute truth, so one cannot even know anything for sure -including no scientists, such as Lewontin. The irony is striking. Now if there are no absolutes then it would be true that we allow that the regularities of nature may change any & every moment. The laws may dissolve, mathematics is no longer certain, nothing remains.  Science itself becomes relative, volatile and unreliable. Nothing is certain under atheism’s obligatory relativism. Nothing can be known as objectively true in atheism, including atheism itself. This is standard atheist dogma and if atheism were true, then they would be right in claiming this.

However, under theism, what is the reason that the regularities may be ruptured? The only possible reason would be the will of the deity.  But then why would an intelligent creator simply screw everything he made from one day to the next?  What reason would he have? None, assuming this God is wise and good.

Moreover, even if he did, would mankind ever know it? Highly unlikely, well at least not for more than a few seconds. We would almost certainly disappear in some sort of total cosmic implosion if only 1 of the “fine tuning” constants were to be altered by the deity. And who would be left to give a damn for humanity?

In theism, we infer, through multitudes of inferences and the very state of the cosmos,  that the intelligence of the creator is infinite (just look at what he made) and that his moral nature is the very foundation of all morality.

Worse, Lewontin’s statement is in fact simply wrong, since we already have ample testimony that in fact the laws of the nature are universal, stable and constant since the beginning of all human history. Simply because we have something we call “science” and it works.

Now to prove how asinine some atheists can get on this specific point, lets read the “expert” atheist version; one that, if true, literally turns Lewontin’s inane statement upside down:

“There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.” — Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind,1921, pp. 159- 60

Can you see that the truly unstable, unreliable, utterly mutable universe Lewontin imagines under a deity, is actually the highly probable state of nature if atheism were true and not at all if theism is true?

Thank God it isn’t!

Why else would Einstein consider that one of the most surprising attributes of nature to be that it is understandable?

“The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility … The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle”
-Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, p. 462

Einstein was not an atheist by any means.

Thank God for that too.