“Reasonable Belief: Science 1”

Science won’t convince anyone God exists. Conversely, science doesn’t exclude God from existence either. Though there are many who’s ideology is opposed to the idea of an intelligent designer or God who like to claim science has made God irrelevant, the data suggests just the opposite. That could be why the voices apposed to intelligent design theory are getting louder and more militant. There is a movement out there that is dedicated to promoting evolution and combating intelligent design. An awful lot of money and manpower is being focused on propping up the evolutionary tail. From a handful of outspoken atheists to the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which is neither national, nor education, it is indoctrination to the adherence of evolution to the exclusion of any debate. The NCSE is an evolution lobby group who has the sole mandate to promote the theories of evolution and climate change.

Instead of debate on issue and data, the anti-intelligent lobby rely on adhoc, personal attacks and ridicule. Here is a good example of avoiding the debate and attacking your opponent.

“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).” (Richard Dawkins, biologist)

This tactic betrays a clear weakness of position. For 150 years mutation and selection has gone no where, adding nothing new to the conversation and as time moves on, it actually weakening the theory. Many scientists are now moving away from natural selection and mutation as a mechanism capable of novel design.


This argument is neither effective or new? What if it is demonstrated that very intelligent people who went to very good schools, with excellent credentials are skeptical of the type of evolution that creates animals from fish, or birds from dinosaurs? Well, the fact is scores of PhD’s, scientists and Nobel Laureates believe in God and are skeptical of transformative evolution, not the least of who were the pioneers of modern science. When you have to resort to accusing your opponents of being stupid or ignorant, you are looking pretty stupid yourself.


This is the assertion that more are on my side than is on your side. Another weak argument that again, avoids the debate and is meant to deflect direct substantive debate. The other problem is, science is ever changing and if we have leaned anything over history, it is that majority is not an argument for credibility. We only need look to the likes of Copernicus or Galileo, two men who opposed the consensus of science in their day.

Today intelligent design is being called non science or “pseudo-science” by a small group of atheist materialists who avoid direct debate.

“Continental Drift” or “Plate Tectonics” was also laughed at in the early 20th century. The reasons for its ridicule were not the merits of the theory but because it contradicted leading who have spent careers going other directions. In other words, pride, position and ideology.

“Young Chamberlin also quoted an unnamed geologist’s remark that inadvertently revealed the heart of the problem: “If we are to believe Wegener’s hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the last 70 years and start all over again.”

“Instead, geologists largely chose to forget Alfred Wegener, except to launch another flurry of attacks on his “fairy tale” theory in the middle of World War II. For decades afterward, older geologists warned newcomers that any hint of an interest in continental drift would doom their careers.” (Smithsonian Magazine)

Exactly what is going on with intelligent design today. The arguments against the theory of intelligent design are weak and unimpressive. No one argues that evolution occurs, causing small changes like finch beaks and antibiotic resistance. It has been known for thousands of years through animal husbandry that mating certain animals or plants will result in different variations. What is argued today is that mutation and selection does not have the power to turn a deer into a whale.

The above clip is but one of many catastrophic problems in every area of transformative evolution theory. So you see, where the evangelutionist will call you names and deride your character or education, you can stand confident in the fact that their ground is more tenuous indeed.


The problem is, in 50 years no one has been able to demonstrate anything new being produced by the theory. The theory is still being propped up with the smallest of changes, like mutating virus’.

As described in the last blog, evolutionists are fighting to keep failed refuted scientific information in the education curricula. Some are defined as the “Icons”of evolution by PhD molecular and cellular biologist Jonathan Wells. Finally a number of these fallacies have been removed after years of fighting by the evolution lobby.

ORIGINS (Universe / Life)

We are often told by media and teachers that the Big Bang is the origin of the universe, but the BB is the result of a cause, not the causation itself. Science today has no answer for the origin of either life on earth or the origin of the universe. There are theories like the “Multi-verse” that hopes there are infinite numbers of universes which makes it reasonable (in some eyes) that life would result in one of the universes (ours).

One of the leading minds in the world today, Stephen Hawking wrote in his latest book “The Grand Design”, that the universe created itself out of nothing. This is seriously considered while an intelligent designer is called a fantasy.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he writes. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Interesting statement when you consider, before the Big Bang, there were no laws of nature or physics because there was no matter, mass, energy or space.

Life origins science is at a stand still. Many no longer believe life originated on earth and the earth must have been seeded by something else. The famous but deeply flawed Miller-Urey experiment,  that was touted as success in finding a path to life from the pond, is finally being removed from school text books.

I encourage you to investigate this subject for yourself. There is far too much material to cover here. It won’t make you believe or cause your friends or family to believe there is a God, but it will show you that an intelligent designer of the universe and life, is not any more unreasonable than the theories secular ideologists are placing their faith in. I would even go so far as to say, evidence is growing making intelligent design a much more plausible theory than that scientists have been struggling with over the past 150 years.

“We don’t know how life started on this planet. We don’t know exactly when it started, we don’t know under what circumstances.” (NOVA; How Did Life Begin)

“Over the past sixty years, dedicated and skillful scientists have devoted much effort and ink to the origin of life, with remarkably little to show for it. Judging by the volume of literature, both experimental and theoretical, the inquiry has thrived prodigiously. But unlike more conventional fields of biological research, the study of life’s origins has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation;” (Franklin M. Harold, In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life’s Building Blocks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), p. 164.)

“Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution. The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system.” (Koonin, Eugene V. (2007) “The Cosmological Model of Eternal Inflation and the Transition From Chance to Biological Evolution in the History of Life,” Biology Direct, V.2, p.8.)

“It is, perhaps, ironic that we tell beginning students in biology about Pasteur’s experiments as the triumph of reason over mysticism yet we are coming back to spontaneous generation, albeit in a more refined and scientific sense, namely to chemical evolution.” (Cyril Ponnamperuma, The Origins of Life.)

The point of this blog is that for those who may think you have to ignore science and follow a blind faith, leaving your brain outside the door or reason to be a believer in God, that could not be father from the truth. The theories being offered by materialistic science today has no more reasonable claim to the truth than the theory of an intelligent designer.

Reasonable Belief: Science part 1



Robert J.