There is no way to cover the volumes of scientific information, that is leading growing numbers of reputable peer reviewed scientists to theorize an intelligent designer may be responsible for all we can see. I encourage you to follow the links and do some investigation on your own as well.

It has been historically popular for those hostile to the existence of God to accuse the faithful of having to park their brains outside the door of reason. Is it their arrogance, or reasonable assessment of all the data that they claim the higher, reasonable ground?

Is the objection to a supreme intelligence ideological, or science based? Speculated or beyond doubt? Well, while many anti-God proselytizers may claim science has killed the idea of God, it is quite the opposite. That may be why they are decrying the idea even louder today. Frankly, there is just far too much about the universe that is not understood. If you ask a God skeptic, they will tell you, they may not know how this or that happened, but they do know it wasn’t a supreme being. That is a statement of ideology not of experience, empirical observation or experimentation. When you exclude a possible direction evidence is leading based on a preconceived notion, you are now leading the evidence and trying to make it fit your view. Exactly what skeptics accuse theologians of.

No one is claiming science will provide proof of God. On the other hand, recent discoveries are pointing to an intelligent designer. What science is not doing is pushing God out of the picture like atheists would have you believe. You don’t have to be intimidated of science if you are a Christian and you don’t have to turn your brain off to do science, or to embrace science. The pioneers of modern science were Christians who believed their faith pushed them to understand the universe.


Copernicus (1473-1543) mathematician, astronomer

“To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge.” (As quoted in Poland : The Knight Among Nations (1907) by Louis E. Van Norman)

Galileo (1564-1642) astronomer, physicist, engineer, philosopher, and mathematician

Critics cite Galileo as one Christian who forsook scripture for the sake of truth. The problem is, that though the prevailing thought at the time including the church thought the earth was the center of the universe, scripture promotes no such notion.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” (letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany-1615)

Kepler (1571-1630) mathematician, astronomer, astrologer

“The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” (Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, page 31, By Morris Kline

Boyle (1627-1691) “Father of Chemistry”, chemist, physicist, inventor

“Doubtless, it shews the wisdom of God, to have so fram’d things at first, that there can seldom or never need any extraordinary interposition of his power; or the employing from, time to time, an intelligent overseer, to regulate, assist, and control the motions of matter.” (The Philosophical Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle (1725) Vol 2)

Newton (1643-1727) “Father of Physics”, physicist, mathematician

“God created everything by number, weight and measure.” (As quoted in Symmetry in Plants (1998) by Roger V. Jean and Denis Barabé, p. xxxvii)

There are no shortages of modern scientific minds who think the same way the pioneers did. Rarely, are they confronted with empirical rebuttal but with ridicule and adhoc disdain.

Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. – Nobel Laureate (1993) In Physics – for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work, which supported the Big Bang theory.

“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.” (Taylor, as cited in Brown 2002).

Richard Dawkins – Evolutionary Biologist, Ethologist, author and outspoken atheist

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that”


Darwin offered atheists an alternative theory of the diversity of life, but the  dogmatic dismissal of an intelligent designer despite the data, is getting in the way of discovery. methodological naturalism is the new religion and it is shutting down open discourse. What we find in media and academia, is not always the whole truth.

The anti-Christian crowd are having trouble with the data supporting the Darwinian theory that states a deer turned into a whale by natural selection. Not only has this line of investigation stagnated, proponents enthusiasm of the theory is succumbing to erosion. Because of this erosion of belief in its ability to produce novel features and large scale change, error is allowed to contaminate science, and it started long ago.

For example, a narrative is being pushed today that Christian belief hinders science, that Christianity is a science stopper. It is widely promoted that religion held back science for centuries, ignoring the connection between the fathers of modern science and their faith. One of the earliest volleys of the Anti-Science campaign against Christianity is still used today.

you may not realize it but the adhoc arguments, that is the name calling and personal attacks while ignoring the data is a sign of a weak position. If the evidence was stacked and solid, there would be no need for misleading and personal attack tactics. Instead, Neo-Darwinism is failing and has not brought anything interesting to the table in over 50 years.



The myth of the flat earth was a fraud perpetrated on laypeople to besmirch the church. About 200 years BC, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, a Greek mathematician had confirmed the earth was round and also calculated its circumference to an accuracy of within 10%. Theologians never believed the earth was flat and scripture doesn’t teach it. It is argued that Isaiah wrote about a flat disc shaped earth when he said;

Isaiah 40:22; It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers”

They assert that what he must have meant was a flat disc, when circle was adequate. It was evident for anyone who looked into the sky and saw all the spheres there that the earth might just be the same. Maybe they thought the full moon was a disk on its side. Another clue may have been the curved shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse. There were many indicators suggesting a spherical earth including watching a ship disappear over the horizon. Or maybe they thought they all sank, I don’t know.

 Watch Here.

“…the Historical Society of Britain some years back listed as number one in its short compendium of the ten most common historical illusions. It is the notion that people used to believe that the earth was flat–especially medieval Christians.” (Jeffrey Burton Russell-for the American Scientific Affiliation Conference, August 4, 1997 at Westmont College)


The Cosmos reboot television show with Neil deGrasse Tyson rewrote the history of science for its audience. deGrasse informed his viewers Sir Isaac Newton’s faith had nothing to do with his science, that he had to turn off his religion to do good science. But it didn’t go unnoticed.

Biology professor and former writer for Scientific American, Bora Zivkovic advocated for lying to gain the trust of students.

“Education is a subversive activity that is implicitly in place in order to counter the prevailing culture. And the prevailing culture in … many other schools in the country, is a deeply conservative religious culture.”

“You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. “

Scientists and educators have been trying for decades to get fallacious information about evolution out of the education curriculum in the United States and have only recently been marginally successful. The error corrections are being fought by the evolution lobby. The fight for truth and open debate continues.

This is but a small sample of a much larger effort to shut down open debate and discussion. When educators in the United States try to enact legislation that will allow teachers to teach both the strengths and weaknesses of the evolution theory, large well funded Darwinian lobby groups try to stop the effort.

What about the 97% of scientific consensus for Global Warming? Would you be surprised to learn that the 97% consensus is from dividing only 33 papers supporting it into just 34 total papers? That is playing fast and loose with the facts.

“Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times.”Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

“…study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! “Read entire article:



I mention this to show you that science is not as certain about things as the they claim and not all science is free from agenda, manipulation and skewing. We all remember the numerous climate gate scandals that continue to this day.

Next blog will introduce the evidence for an intelligent designer through empirical data derived from sound scientific methodology, including the same methodology Darwin himself used for his theory.


“Reasonable Belief: Science 2”

For more information:


Robert J.