Archive for the ‘Amazing Creation’ Category

J Warner Wallace and the Cold Case Christianity Series

August 18, 17

I’ve been listening to the many talks by J Warner Wallace, author of Cold Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene and Forensic Faith.

He speaks logically, clearly and factually. As a staunch atheist who was convinced by the forensic evidence for the Gospels and God, I will be adding him to my list in Christianity – The Faith of Famously Intellectual, Logical, Reasonable Thinkers.

So here are four videos that I recommend in this order.


First, how Jesus’ resurrection is a ‘cold case’ – it happened so long ago that no living witnesses are around now to testify. But we do have eyewitness testimony recorded, it’s called the Gospels. Can we trust them though?

Best part: Demonstrating how the writing of the Gospel accounts can be dated to within years of Jesus’ crucifixion – meaning that any they could be disputed by still-living eyewitnesses if any details were false.


Second, how the many hallmarks of the universe, life and biology cannot be explained by ‘staying in the room’ – it’s obvious that an intruder from outside the universe’s space-time-matter intervened.

Best part: The bacterial flagellum, which when I showed a friend without context, made him think “Wow what cool (human) machine is this?”


Third, can it be reasonably argued that Jesus didn’t die on the cross?

Best part: Details about Jesus – sweat like drops of blood, and water and blood coming out when He was pierced by the spear – that the Gospel writers and early church couldn’t explain, yet left in the accounts as they were true events… And modern medicine finally finding out that those details actually can happen in real life.


And fourth, how the problem of evil actually points towards the existence (and defends the righteousness) of God.

Best part: Putting all life experiences into the correct context of eternity

Cosmological Sense of Humour

November 25, 10

“There is no God, the universe is ordered and liveable for sentient life by pure, random and godless chance.”


Via AoSHQ, from NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day.

KitKit – New Thong Family Kitten Videos

October 13, 08

The cute newest member of my family:

Kitkit Thong family cat

Kitkit Thong family cat

Kitkit Thong family cat

No official name as of yet, but generally called Kitkit.

Read more about him and see more pics at Jamie’s blog: This is…Kitty.

Videos below the fold for your amusement! There are 22 videos.

I highly recommend Kitten’s first bath 1 (the 15th video below)!


If Not Evolution, Then What Alternative For God Creating Life?

April 19, 08

Please read through before you decide to flame me in the comments, dig?

This post is intended to be read, pondered and answered by Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, and Christian and Jewish believers. It is an expansion of my very old post, Creation: How?.

First up, some assumptions I will make for the purposes of this post:

1) God as portrayed in the Bible is real and can do anything He wishes
2) God created all the universe, the Earth and all life on Earth
3) Evolution is not true.

Now, let’s review the following observations about God:

1) When a needy family needs money desperately, God doesn’t answer their prayers by snapping His fingers and making cash materialize out of thin air – even though He can. He instead prompts the heart of a believer to give a love gift to that family.

2) When God wanted to save mankind by forgiving their sins, He didn’t just snap His fingers and wipe the slates clean – even though He could. Instead, He sent Jesus to willingly die as atonement for our sins, in accordance with the Law God gave Moses.

3) When God created the universe, He didn’t just snap His fingers and make all the stars, planets and comets appear already in place across space and time – even though He could. Okay, maybe He did snap His fingers, butthe point is that He instead caused the Big Bang which, just as the Church has long believed, created everything from nothing, and over time formed all the Red Shifter, exapanding universe.

Therefore, we can see that while God is able to make anything happen by His omnipotence, He chooses to do it through orderly means that do not break the laws of space, time and holiness He put into place.

Which leads to the question: If we aren’t convinced or don’t believe that evolution is true, then by what means did God create all life on Earth?

Yes, God could snapped His fingers and instantly the seas would be filled with fish, the land with trees and animals, and the skies with birds already in flight. At a glance, that would seem to be how it’s portrayed in Genesis – instant creation.

But the way God created the non-living universe was by the billions-of-years process started by the Big Bang – and the account of the creation of the universe is also in Genesis. So it doesn’t all have to be instantaneous.

So if, IMHO, God created all life using an orderly process that follows the scientific laws He Himself invented… And evolution is not that method…

What other method is there that is proposed?

Citing Intelligent Design does not avoid the problem. It merely states that a Designer with great intelligence designed all life, but it doesn’t explain or propose WHAT process the Designer used. We still need a build-from-bottom-up process that results in life, just as how God built the universe from the bottom up with the atoms and quarks of the Big Bang.

And note that this does not make His miracles any lessened – creating everything from nothing in a gazillionth of a second and causing unaffiliated molecules to combine into life is still way out of the realm of common probability!

I’ve pondered it long, and haven’t any answers as yet. It would therefore seem that, despite its many flaws and holes, evolution is currently the only build-from-bottom-up theory there is.

So, anyone have any ideas?

PS. But don’t worry, even if evolution turns out to be true in some aspects, that does not abrogate the truth of Creationism (God created all life) or Intelligent Design (life was designed by intelligence).

For an explanation why, see my post The Sin Theory of Evolution – Reconciling Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design .

Easy 3 Steps to Why We Can Believe The Bible About Spirituality and Metaphysics

March 12, 08

“I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” – Jesus in John 3:12

The three steps to belief: 

1) As Jesus says, if we cannot believe what the Bible says about earthly things, then we can’t believe what it says about heavenly things either.

2) We can believe what the Bible says about a great many earthly things, such as history  and observable science. (Although not everything the Bible mentions has been proven yet, this ought to one day be achieved. Hey – evolution was accepted as ‘fact’ even without the necessary transitional fossils.)

3) Therefore, we can believe what the Bible says about heavenly things as well, such as God, salvation, heaven, hell, spirits, demons and magic.

SUMMARY: Since the Bible has proven trustworthy in facts that we can prove today such as history (e.g. the Cyrus cylinder verifying the Book of Ezra) and observable science (e.g. the value of pi to two decimal places), it is highly likely to be trustworthy in the other facts that we can’t prove – such as whether God exists and offers us love and forgiveness.


PS. If you’re itching to comment with alleged inaccuracies and scientific fallacies in the Bible, just be warned that I am well experienced in refuting such arguments. I suggest you browse the Net for the debunks to such accusations before trying them out here.


PPS. A list of my posts on Biblical trustworthyness

The Bible is textually and historically accurate:

Science does not contradict the Bible’s claims, but rather strengthens them:

The Bible’s claims are logically sound:

Coincidences so incredibly improbable that they can’t be coincidental – but rather directed by an omniscient, omnipotent God:

The physical universe and biochemistry are so complex and fine tuned that they must have been the work of an ultra-intelligent creator:’s 5 Most Horrifying Bugs VS Scott’s 5 Most Horrible Worms

January 21, 08

I’m number one for worms! See Scott’s Blog – The Best Place for Tapeworms.


Via In Monologue, visit to see these ‘5 Most Horrifying Bugs in the World’







Now compare the beasties you just saw to my own pick of the ‘5 MOST HORRIBLE WORMS IN YOUR BODY’.









These nightmarish creatures called endoparasitic worms are far more horrifying in my opinion, as they tunnel into, eat and breed in your very own precious body.

Infesting your MUSCLES



Your LYMPH NODES (transmitted by mere mosquito bites!!!)…








And your BRAIN.





And with dis-honourable mention, here’s just one of the countless varieties that infest your INTESTINES.


You can run from the hornets, ants and bees. But you won’t even see the worms until it is too late and a billion-strong army of squirming, burrowing death bursts from your every pore and gland.

They don’t die from insecticide. You can’t swat them. They live inside you, so you can’t even burn or nuke them.

They totally and utterly pwn you.

But remember! These monstrous forms of Intelligently Designed life are not God’s fault.

PS. The poor little bees that the Japanese Hornet likes to bully have their own unique defense: The Bee Ball: Bee Thermal Defense

Biblical History and Aspects of Macro-Evolution Are Highly Likely to Be True

January 16, 08

IMHO, the Bible’s account of historical events is well verified in many places by archaeological and manuscript discoveries.

Many of these are ‘anecdotal’ in that just the name of a certain person or a certain place described in the Bible have been verified by secular research.

But other examples are highly detailed and specific, such as the Cyrus cylinder vs Book of Ezra.

With so much correlating evidence in favour of parts of the Biblical account, it is highly likely that the remainder of the Bible – the parts not yet proven definitely factual – is also accurate.

Yet Bible skeptics continue to contend that the Bible’s historical account is flawed, fictional, or only vaguely connected to actual historical finds – this in spite of mounting evidence dug up from the ground.

But that got me thinking… Isn’t that the same thing I am personally doing with the fossil record of macro-evolution?

(Macro-evolution being from one species to a new species, rather than modification within a species.)

To be precise: The theorized evolution of whales, from land-based mammals to halfway-aquatic, then finally fully aquatic swimmers. For more on that, see these educative comments:

My objections to the reasoning that ‘fossils = proof of evolution’ is that such evidence is, to me, circumstantial – the fossils are individual and isolated snapshots frozen in time.

Three different fossils may show a whale-ish land mammal with running legs, a water-land mammal with swimming legs, and an almost modern whale with atravistic hind legs. But these fossils could merely show three unrelated animals that happen to look slightly similar.

But now I compare it to the standard I hold Biblical archaeology to: For example, the Cyrus cylinder seems to independently verify the account of the Jews returning to Israel after the exile to Babylon, along with corroborative facts such as the Jewish legacy in Iraq (e.g. Babylonian Talmud).

But these findings could merely show that the writer of Ezra had at least moderate research skills. Cyrus was a famous name, and his decrees would be heard across the known nations. It could have been that a Jewish scribe used Cyrus’ decree as the basis for a (fictional) story of the triumphal return of the Jews.

So by the very same standard with which Biblical skeptics dismiss the archaeological and manuscript evidence that I feel proves Biblical history (you need complete historical accounts!), I am dismissing the fossil evidence that evolutionists feel prove descent with modification (you need more transitionals!).

Therefore, if I am in any way consistent, fair and unbiased in my judgement, I must come to the same conclusions for both disciplines.

So here it is at last: I admit that certain aspects of the theory of evolution, namely the gradual descent with modification of certain species into different species, is highly likely to be true.

With one caveat: That the accusations of fraud and misleading raised by sites like Answers in Genesis are unfounded (compare that to Wikipedia on whale evolution and see this comment for a counter).

Greatest of thanks go to commentor Ed Darrell, who was quite tireless in presenting information and links to convince me of the factual truth of evolution (despite my obtuseness).

I’m not 100% there yet, but I’m middle-ground rather than strongly skeptical. I still have issues with other aspects of Darwinistic evolution, such as how the various Phyla formed and why no transitionals seem to survive to the current day.

So, to summarize: Using the same standard for both, I believe Biblical history and cetain aspects of macro-evolution to be highly likely to be true, as corroborated by physical evidence dug up from the ground.

Welcome in, have a seat and a hot cup of chocolate, certain aspects of macro-evolution!

But global warming still stays outside in the CO2-caused record snowfall.

Please Cite Me the Evidence for Evolution and Global Warming

December 17, 07

So anyone, please tell me:

What evidence is there that firmly demonstrates the occurrence of evolution in the past or present?


What evidence is there that firmly links rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the increase in global temperature?

Can anyone actually cite some worthwhile evidence, apart from the easy-to-debunk, endlessly rehashed fallacies and disproven non-facts?

What I’m looking for is definitive, conclusive evidence that completely excludes all other explanations… Not piles of circumstantial evidence that can be equally well explained by other theories.

In short: I want proof that DIRECTLY AND UNCONTESTABLY PROVES that evolution or global warming is a fact, not CONJECTURES BASED ON (HIGHLY) CORROBORATIVE DATA that it is a fact.

Also, clarification: I’m looking for proof of macro-evolution, i.e. evolution from one species or even Class into a whole other type of life form. Micro-evolution, i.e. adaptation within a recognizable kind of life form, is a given.

The bet: That you cannot quote or link me any evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has happened, or that global warming is caused by human produced carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.

The stake: If you present an argument that I actually find compelling, I will believe in evolution and/or global warming. I will publicly admit as much from now on, including the fact that I was wrong about the subject before.

Note: I’ll keep a very open mind, but good luck trying. I was once a strong believer in both evolution and global warming, until I actually LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS MYSELF instead of just accepting what the evolution textbooks and An Inconvenient Truth say.

So you might have a hard time re-convincing me of all the old arguments that I had debunked for me to turn me from proponent to skeptic.


Why I Feel About Global Warming The Same Way I Feel About Evolution

100 Scientists Dissent Darwinism

100 Scientists Dissent Global Warming

Global Warming Hysteria: Why Atheists, Christians and Malaysiakini Readers Shouldn’t Believe It

December 17, 07

To the Atheists (or Agnostics):

You often say that you cannot believe that God exists, since no conclusive evidence that positively proves God’s existence can be found.

Well, similarly, there is still no conclusive evidence that proves global warming is caused by carbon dioxide emissions. There is only a theory and plenty of conjecture, but it has yet to be shown definitively that global temperature rise is caused mainly by carbon dioxide – and not solar fluctuations, water vapour or cosmic rays.

Yet the proponents of CO2-forced temperature theory have already discarded and branded as ‘heretical’ all other theories in the firm belief that their CO2 models are correct.

By believing that global warming is an imminent doomsday, End Times, apocalyptic, armageddonic End of the World… Are they not religiously putting their trust in prophecies based solely on faith, not reason or logic or cold hard evidence?

For your reading:

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Temple of the Goracle (with Al Gore as its high priest, giving out emissions-and-brimstone sermons and carbon offset indulgences)

Ann Coulter Junks Global Warming Too (how global warming has all the vices of dogmatic, totalitarian religion

Ann Coulter Junks Al Gore Too

100 Scientists Dissent Global Warming

Many Peer Reviewed Scientific Studies Defy Global Warming ‘Consensus’

MAYBE Humans Cause Global Warming That COULD Cause Climate Changes That MIGHT Be Bad, PERHAPS


To the Christians:

It is claimed that global warming is a proven fact, that all evidence points to it, that the vast majority of reputable scientists believe it, and that anyone who does not accept the truth of global warming is a religiously motivated pseudo-juunkscience moron who believes the Earth is flat and the centre of the universe, with the Sun revolving around it.

That is exactly what has been claimed about evolution for the past century.

Does that throw any perspective onto the so-claimed scientific consensus on global warming? Just because the secularists who control the sciences, education system and media say it is true, does not make it the truth.

For your reading:

Why I Feel About Global Warming The Same Way I Feel About Evolution

Compare 100 Scientists Dissent Darwinism with 100 Scientists Dissent Global Warming






This next one is from The New York Times of all places.










The Goracle from Moonbattery:


Plenty more mockery at Global Warming Editorial Cartoons.


To the Malaysiakini Readers:

Open up a newspaper or turn on the TV, and you will find only bad news about global warming. How climate change is jeapordizing our civilization. How more and more evidence points to human-produced carbon dioxide as the threat that will doom us all. How the United Nations and every sane scientist supports drastic measures to curb CO2 emissions.

But before you swallow the brainwash powder they are peddling, consider this: 

The mainstream media is controlled by interests with a stake in perpetuating mass paranoia about ‘global warming’. They go to great lengths to discredit critics of the status quo on ‘global warming’, especially independent media. If they could, they would arrest and silence their critics for the crimes of heresy and public disorder against the establishment, which is firmly backed by the silent majority on ‘global warming’.

Now read the above paragraph again, only replace ‘global warming’ with ‘social contract’, political stability’ or ‘peaceful, tensionless race relations’.

I’ll put it to you bluntly: If you don’t believe anything the mainstream, Government Enslaved Media media has to say about politics, crime, social issues, religious issues, peaceful/violent demonstrations, corruption, fairness and justice…

Then why should you believe what it has to indoctrinate you about global warming either? Isn’t an honest pursuit of the truth why you go to non-government moderated sources such as and blogs?

For your reading:

The IPCC Does Not Want Balanced Climate Reporting

Official British Court Finds 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Labels It As Political Propaganda

Classical Values on The IPCC Mandate

NST: Global Warming: The Facts Do Not Add Upa> (last paragraph of letter, which is repeated in the quotes below)

Also read the following quotes:

“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, one of the original leading proponents of global warming

Balanced reporting perpetuates the public’s perception that scientists are in disarray, which is misleading in the case of climate change.” – Kevin Hennessy, lead scientist with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” – Al Gore, probably the most well known public proponent of global warming


For everyone’s reading on carbon dioxide and global warming:

Video: Refuting Al Gore on CO2 Levels and Temperature

Carbon Emissions and Percentage of Atmosphere

Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming – 5 Reasons Why I’m Not Alarmed

35 Scientific Errors (or Intentional Lies) in An Inconvenient Truth

Official British Court Finds 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Labels It As Political Propaganda

Many Peer Reviewed Scientific Studies Defy Global Warming ‘Consensus’

Ground Based Temperature Recording Stations: Stupid Locations For Measuring Global Warming

A Skeptical Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming

Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer): A Collection of Quotes

December 4, 07

“If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.”

Robert Griffiths, physicist and winner of the Dannie Heineman Prize for Mathematical Physics

Quote from Evolution is Dead!


Note: The following are not all exact quotes. Some have been paraphrased.


“The most amazing thing to me is existence itself. How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?”

“Can a person be a scientist and a Christian? Yes. As I said before, the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone.”

“God is the explanation for the miracle of existence.”

Allan Sandage, cosmologist and Nobel Prize winner

See also Leadership U.


“Not in the center of the galaxy, not in a globular cluster, not near an active gamma ray source, not in a multiple-star system, or near a pulsar, or near stars too small, too large, or soon to go supernova.”

Peter Ward, professor of Biology and of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington, and David Brownlee, astronomer and biologist in their book ‘Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe’

Learn more about the multiple fine-tuned parameters that are required to support life on Earth: Rare Earth hypothesis

Right area of the galaxy, suitable star, Jupiter’s gravitational influence, Earth’s size, large Moon, plate tectonics, chemistry of the atmosphere = probability of 1 in 10,000,000,000 to 1 in 1,000,000,000,000


“Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.” Of course you would…”

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

“I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

“If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of…”

“The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”

“The random emergence of even the simplest cell is comparable to the likelihood that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

“The chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously.”

Fred Hoyle, astronomer and proposer of the Steady State Theory, and an atheist (for now…) who is forced by logic to support the existence of an Intelligent Designer


“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 mountain 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.”

“Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proven that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, what cause produced the effect? Who or what put the matter and energy in the universe? Was the universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions.”

Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist, cosmologist, First chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee, Founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Director Emeritus of Mount Wilson Observatory, and an agnostic (for now…)

I would add to his second quote: If the Big Bang theory and atheism are both correct, then the Universe was created out of nothing, because of nothing, for the purpose of nothing.

Think about it, what could possibly have caused all time and space and matter and energy to exist rather than continue not existing for infinity?


We shall now move on to the principle of the fine tuned universe – how the universe’s parameters are so perfectly, so fragilely set to just the right values to support life, that it is unfathomable that it all happened by chance.


 “If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron — then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.”

– Rr. Dennis Scania, Head of Cambridge University Observatories


“If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.”

“If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.”

David D. Deutsch, physicist at Oxford University, and an atheist (for now…)


“The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life — almost contrived — you might say a ‘put-up job’.”

Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University and chairman of SETI


“How surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.”

“One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning — The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.”

Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics winner for combining electromagnetism and the weak force into the electroweak force, and an agnostic (for now…)


“The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”

Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, coiner of the term ‘dark energy’


“It’s an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe — and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure — we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Einstein’s) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.”

Roger Penrose, Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford


“To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, “How could it have ever been otherwise?”

John Archibald Wheeler, theoretical physicist and coiner of the term ‘black hole’


“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.”

Stephen Hawking, probably the most well-known theoretical physicist in the public eye, and an agnostic (for now…)


Most of the above quotes on fine tuned universe and more from Gerald Schroeder.

See also Beliefnet: A Finely-Tuned Universe: What Are the Odds?.

And for the parameters for each of the fine-tuned settings of the universe:
God and Science: Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe


As a biologist, I am often in awe of the logical and mathematical prowess of physicists. They simply have an understanding of incredibly complex abstract concepts that my classically trained mind cannot grasp.

I’m no astrophysics genius. I can’t even wrap my mind around how Einstein’s relativistic gravity caused by the bending of space-time works, I have to stick with Newton’s gravty as a force.

But all these people I quoted above study science at the very highest echelons of understanding, of logic, of scientific experimentation.

They are smarter than me. They know whether something is possible or impossible, even on a quantum physics level where reality gets all screwy. So I trust that they know what they’re talking about.

And they say: “Based on the empirical evidence, to not have a God who created our universe is just impossible.”

But from my biologist’s viewpoint, I must say that I can agree with them completely, just on the basis of the Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design of the amazingly improbable phenomena called life.

%d bloggers like this: