Great refutation of Bill Nye's comments

Bill Nye: The (Pseudo-)Science Guy

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Many of us who are scientists grew up watching “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” and learned to love science in the process. Sadly, Bill Nye came out recently with a video that indicates he is vehemently opposed to parents who teach children that evolutionary theory is false. In a YouTube video posted by BigThink.com, Nye said:

wikipedia.org (Ed Schipul) 2012 CC-by-sa-2.0

Denial of evolution is unique to the United States…. People still move to the United States, and that’s largely because of the intellectual capital we have—the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in that, it holds everybody back. Really. Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science. In all of biology. It’s like, it’s very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You’re just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place…. Once in awhile I get people that really, or, that claim, they don’t believe in evolution. And my response, generally, is, “Why not? Really. Why not?” Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution. Here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils. Here is radioactivity. Here are distant stars that are just like our star but that are at a different point in their life cyle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy. Just untenable. It’s self-inconsistent. And I say to the grown-ups: If you want to deny evolution and live in your, in your, uh, world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the Universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future…. We need engineers that can build stuff—solve problems…. In another couple centuries, that world view, I’m sure, will be, just won’t exist. There’s no evidence for it (Fowler and Rodd, 2012).

Such comments, though not surprising, certainly are unfortunate, since so many young people have long hung on Bill Nye’s every word about science.
Several points are worthy of mentioning in response to Mr. Nye. It is true that widespread denial of evolution seems to be somewhat unique to the United States (see Miller, 2012), although there are other contenders (cf. Le Page, 2008). It is also true that many people clamor to get into the United States and that the United States has been the leader in the technological revolution over the last century. What’s unfortunate is that Nye totally ignores the fact that America has become the superpower that we are in science and in every other field—while largely not believing in evolution. America has historically been Christian and pro-Bible (and thus, anti-evolution), and in truth, it is due to that stance that America has flourished. Becoming more pro-evolution would actually move us in the opposite direction from the direction that has made us great in the first place. Believing in evolution will actually “hold America back”—while believing in Creation has not.
Nye believes that dinosaur fossils, radioactivity, distant stars, and deep time prove evolution and disprove Creation. As you know, we address such matters on a regular basis (e.g., Lyons and Butt, 2008; DeYoung, 2005; Lyons, 2011; Miller, 2010) and have shown that the scientific evidence supports the Creation model rather than the Evolutionary model. The Creation model can offer reasonable explanations, in keeping with the scientific evidence, for the existence of matter, energy, life, the laws of science, design, beauty, religious intuition, morality, “anomalies” in the geologic column, and many other things, while the Evolutionary model falls far short. It is the Evolutionary model that is “completely inconsistent” with much of what we observe in the Universe. In truth, it is the Evolutionary model that is holding back the progress of science. If evolutionary scientists would stop spending time and money in pursuit of unscientific notions (like trying to figure out how abiogenesis could happen, even though science has already disproven that idea time and again; or how something material could come from nothing or exist forever, even though science has already disproven those ideas time and again; or trying to find “missing link” fossils that prove that we came from ape-like creatures, when over 130 years of exploration into the geologic column has not helped in that pursuit), and begin interpreting the scientific evidence in light of the Creation model, much more progress could be made.
Evolutionary theory spawned the false concept of vestigial organs. That idea would have all but stopped scientific research on those organs, since according to evolutionary theory, those organs are now useless or nearly so. Now we are realizing that those organs are not vestigial, but important, and we are reaping the effects of evolutionists’ lack of emphasis on those organs for over a century. Little research has been done on many of those organs in the past century due to the vestigial argument. On the other hand, when scientists have turned their attention towards the created order for scientific inspiration—as creationists do since we understand that the Chief Engineer designed it—they are discovering that the Universe is replete with fully functional, amazing designs worthy of mimicking. The Creation model is hardly a hinderance to scientific progress. Contrary to Nye’s charge to parents—we encourage parents to continue to advocate the creationist mindset! The fruit of that pursuit has been the emergence of the most advanced and prosperous country in the history of mankind (cf. Skousen, 2009). Teach your kids the truth! “We need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff—solve problems.”
In a CBS interview after the release of the video, Nye talked about his passion concerning evolutionary theory.

I feel passionate about it for the betterment of the United States, the United States economy, and our future. What makes the United States great—the reason people want to live in the United States, move here still—is because of our ability to innovate. This goes back to Ben Franklin and Thomas Alva Edison and George Washington Carver, let alone landing on the moon—Neil Armstrong. All these people believed in science (“Bill Nye on Creationism Critique…,” 2012).

While we disagree that the “reason people want to live in the United States” is solely our ability to innovate, we certainly agree that the freedom and encouragement to engage in innovative endeavors in this country is a significant perk in coming here. However, Nye has failed to realize that the freedom to innovate in this country stems from the fundamental belief held by the Founders of this country—that men have been “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These unalienable Rights, according to the Founders, were derived from the God of the Bible, in which, the Founders, en masse, believed (see Miller, 2008b). Belief in the Bible has resulted in fewer evolutionists in America—since Darwinian evolution and the biblical account of Creation cannot be harmonized (see Thompson, 2000). And yet, again, America is still greater than, perhaps, any other country in the history of the world.
Ironically, Nye mentions Franklin, Carver, and Armstrong among the great scientists of history. Franklin, though less religious than many of the Founders, was still a strong proponent of biblical morality in America and believed in the God of the Bible. Carver was a well-known Creation scientist, and Armstrong was among this country’s pioneering astronauts who even read from the Bible from space during television broadcasts (see Miller, 2008a). Nye failed to mention the fact that many great scientists from history have made significant contributions to the field of science, even though they were firm believers in God and Creation. Johannes Kepler, the father of modern astronomy and modern optics, was a firm Bible believer. Robert Boyle, the father of chemistry, was a Bible believer. Samuel F.B. Morse, who invented Morse Code, was a believer. Wernher Von Braun, the father of the space program at NASA, was a strong believer in God and creation, as well as Louis Pasteur, the father of biology, Lord Kelvin, the father of thermodynamics, Sir Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, and Faraday, the father of electromagnetism. Dozens of other well-known scientists from history could be cited (see Morris, 1990).
Although numbers ultimately mean nothing in regard to truth, creationists can certainly come up with an impressive list of qualified scientists living today who have examined the scientific evidence and concluded that the evolutionary model falls short in explaining our existence. Creation Ministries International posted a list of some 187 scientists alive today (or recently deceased) who believe in the biblical account of creation (“Creation Scientists…,” 2010). The scientists who are listed all possess a doctorate in a science-related field. Over 90 different scientific fields are represented in the list, including several types of engineers, chemists, geneticists, physicists, and biologists. Astronomers and astrophysicists; geologists and geophysicists; physicians and surgeons; micro-, molecular, and neurobiologists; paleontologists and zoologists are represented, and the list goes on. Jerry Bergman amassed a list of more than 3,000 individuals. Most have a Ph.D. in science, and many more could be added, according to Bergman.

On my list I have well over 3,000 names including Nobel Prize winners, but, unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to the public list, including many college professors, did not want their name listed because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their careers (2006).

For over 30 years, we at Apologetics Press have conducted numerous seminars and published hundreds of articles by qualified, credentialed scientists who speak out in support of the biblical account of creation as well—scientists with graduate degrees in geology, astrophysics, microbiology, neurobiology, cell biology, biochemistry, aerospace engineering, nuclear engineering, and biomechanical engineering. Creationists can certainly speak with credibility in scientific matters—and we can show with confidence that the scientific evidence does not support Bill Nye and his evolutionary theory.
Concerning a recent NASA conference he attended, Nye noted how extraordinary it is that anybody in the world could attend that conference in a sense, since it was broadcast all around the world using technology that did not exist in the past, but now does, thanks to science. “That’s a result of science. That’s not a result of thinking the Earth is some extraordinarily short number of years old” (“Bill Nye on Creationism…,” 2012). It is true that our technology is a result of science, and in a sense, it is not necessarily all due to “thinking the Earth is some extraordinarily short number of years old,” since not all technological breakthroughs or hang-ups are necessarily the result of one’s belief on the age of the Earth. However, technology is also not a result of thinking the Earth is some extraordinarily long number of years old either. One’s belief about how old the Earth is does not necessarily directly affect the findings of science. Even prominent evolutionists recognize that one does not need to believe in Darwinian evolution in order to be a scientist. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University said, “a student of, say, nerve cells, might decide that he is not aided by thinking about evolution. The nerve specialist agrees that his nerve cells are the products of evolution, but he does not need to use this fact in his research…. That is a defensible position…. A physicist certainly doesn’t need Darwinism in order to do physics” (1996, p. 283, emp. added). A person’s stance on evolutionary theory may not directly affect his scientific findings, but it certainly can indirectly affect his findings through God’s Providence—as has been manifested throughout the history of this country and the blessings that Almighty God has bestowed upon us through scientific advancement. When God is happy with the decisions of a country, the country is blessed with prosperity and advancement (Psalm 33:12). So, Bill Nye and people like him are a hindrance to scientific progress. Why? (1) Because his views foster the acceptance of false information and hinder the free exchange of ideas; and (2) Because his unbiblical view of the origin of the Universe will ultimately lead to the drying up of the fountain of God’s providential scientific blessings in this country. May God help us to boldly fight this war for the soul of America.

REFERENCES

Bergman, Jerry (2006), “Darwin Skeptics,” http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html.
“Bill Nye on Creationism Critique: I’m Not Attacking Religion” (2012), CBS News, August 28, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505270_162-57501492/bill-nye-on-creationism-critique-im-not-attacking-religion/.
“Creation Scientists and Other Specialists of Interest” (2010), Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creation-scientists.
Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton).
DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Fowler, Jonathan and Elizabeth Rodd (2012), “Bill Nye: Creationism is Not Appropriate for Children,” BigThink.com, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU.
Le Page, Michael (2008), “Evolution Myths: It Doesn’t Matter if People Don’t Grasp Evolution,” New Scientist, 198[2652]:31, April 19.
Lyons, Eric (2011), “Common Sense, Miracles, and the Apparent Age of the Earth,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4082.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion (Montgomery: AL: Apologetics Press).
Miller, Dave (2008a), “American Astronauts: From Belief to Unbelief,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=2490.
Miller, Dave (2008b), The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Miller, Jeff (2010), “Inevitable—Given Enough Time?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3729.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “Literal Creationists Holding Their Ground in the Polls,” Reason & Revelation, 32[9]:94-95, September (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Morris, Henry M. (1990), Men of Science Men of God: Great Scientists Who Believed in the Bible (El Cajon, CA: Master Books), third printing.
Skousen, W. Cleon (2009), The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World (Malta, ID: National Center for Constitutional Studies), 17^th printing.
Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/cre_comp.pdf.

Bill Nye: Not Appropriate for Children

Just some things to think about

Lets Squash Some Bugs 3, The True Nature of Evidence

     In the debate between Mr. Butt and Mr. Scott, Mr. Scott continually asked for the evidence for the existence of God.  This was his primary reason for rejecting the evidence that was presented to him and the audience from Mr. Butt.  He asked repeatedly "Where's the evidence?".  I believe that Mr. Scott is unaware of the true nature of evidence.  It is not what many, including Mr. Scott seem to think.  The following is an article that I published a few years ago on Facebook.  It explains what the true nature of evidence is and what is really involved when anyone comes to that evidence.
     What is the place of scientific evidence in the origins debate?  Do things like DNA, fossils, rock layers, the age of the earth really show that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution has occurred, or do they support the creation account as described in Genesis.  Why is it that 2 PhD scientists can work side by side on the same piece of evidence and come up with 2 totally different explanations of the evidence?
     Many people like to think that an unbiased investigation of the evidence in the absolute standard by which the origins debate can be settled.  We often hear the evolutionist say "The evidence is conclusive, evolution is a fact".  If this were true then, would it not be the case that all would accept this fact?  Yet when we look at the vast gulf that exists within the two camps, it becomes obvious that something else is in play.
     Again, some people think that all that is needed is the evidence.  However, such a view does not stand up to careful scrutiny.  Others take the opposite approach.  They believe that scientific evidence is utterly irrelevant to the debate.  The issue being more a matter of faith than reason.  However, this is overly simplistic and, just as the opposite, will not stand up to careful scrutiny.
     Before we begin to address the issue at hand, I wish to include a couple of the most compelling scientific arguments for Biblical creation.  The first has to do with Information Science.  This is a relatively new field in science.  Yet it is one of the most compelling.  In this technological age, we are inundated with all sorts of information.  But few people stop to consider what information really is and where it comes from.  We can define information scientifically as a coded message containing an expected action and intent.  Under this definition, the words on the screen qualify as information.  That is to cay they are encoded, the words represent ideas.  The expected action is that you, the reader, will read and act upon the words.  The intended purpose is that you will become better in your understanding of the issue (that is, if I can explain it!).
     The DNA molecule is a long molecule found within living cells and resembles a twisted ladder.  The rungs of the ladder form a pattern of base pair triplets that represent amino acid sequences or the building blocks of protein.  DNA contains the instructions to build the organism.  So different organisms have different DNA patterns.  DNA qualifies under the definition of information.  1) It contains an encoded message, the base pair triplets that represent amino acids.  2) It has an expected action, the formation of proteins.  3) It has an intended purpose, life.  This being the case, DNA contains information.  Whenever we find any kind of information there are certain rules that apply, these are called theorems.  For our discussion we will look at two.  1) "There is no known law of nature, no known process and no know sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter", (Theorem #28 in DR. Werner Gitts book In the Beginning Was Information, Green Forest, AR:Master Books, 2006, p. 207).  2) "When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backwards, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender ( Theorem #15, Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, p. 107).  The first tells us that matter does not spontaneously generate information.  The second tells us that only a mental source can generate new information.  To underline this concept, consider the response given by Richard Dawkins when asked to give an example of new information being generated by chance.  His response was silence.
     In one sense, these theorems are hardly profound; we that for granted that when we read a book it has an author.  No one reading this would conclude that it was generated by a sequence of typos that gradually accumulated over time.  We take for granted that a mind (no matter how small) is ultimately responsible for the information that it contains.  The theorems of information science confirm this.
     With this new science, it would seem that the gradualist Darwinian scenario is crushed.  These theorems tell us that life cannot have come about as it is stated by the evolutionists.  The information in DNA cannot have come about by mutations and selection because the laws of information science tell us that all information comes from a mind.  This goes against the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of origins.  The laws of information science would seem to confirm the creation account as given in Genesis.
     Although the above example is a very good argument, it does not actually prove Biblical creation, nor does it utterly refute evolution.  The reason being is, when faced with this kind of evidence, those who do not accept the Biblical account of creation invoke (unknowingly) what is called a "rescuing device".  That is, they invent a story to explain away apparently contrary evidence.  A great example of this comets.
     Evolutionary astronomers believe that the solar system is billions of years old, yet they see comets within it.  They can see that comets disintegrate quite rapidly and based on this they compute that they can last only 100,000 years or so.  This would indicate the the universe is rather young.  How do the resolve this dilemma?  There must be a source that generates new comets to replace the old ones.  So they have proposed the Oort cloud (named after its inventor Jan Oort).  This cloud is an enormous hypothetical sphere of icy masses that surround our solar system.  It is supposedly far beyond the most distant planets, beyond the range of our most powerful telescopes.  They also suppose that on occasion, objects in the Oort cloud are dislodged from their distant orbit and thrown into the inner solar system to become brand new comets.  Since these new comets continually replace the old ones, the solar system could be billions of years old.  It is important to indicate here that no one has ever seen the Oort cloud.  It is supposedly much to far away to detect the small objects within it.  Currently there is no observational evidence of any kind for the cloud.  This is a rescuing device that "saves" the evolutionists view from evidence that would otherwise seem to refute it.  Is this acceptable?  Can "rescuing devices be used?
     The answer to the question might surprise you.  It is NO.  A rescuing device is not necessarily wrong.  In fact we all use these devices, even the Biblical creationist.  The distant starlight problem is a great example the the Biblical creationist also use these devices.  This argument states that the universe must be billions of years old since it takes light millions of years to reach the earth from distant galaxies.  This would seem to be irrefutable evidence that the universe is in fact billions of years old.  How does the Biblical creationist answer this contrary evidence.  A rescuing device.  There have been several models proposed to explain this problem, yet they have yet to be conclusive.  So in order to retain our position, we issue a rescuing device of our own.  We introduce the words of Scripture in order to save our belief.  Is this arbitrary?  Are we, just like the evolutionist being unreasonable?  The answer is no, both sides have a reason to believe what they believe.  It is called a world view.
     We all have a way of thinking about the world, this is commonly called a world view.  Our world view contains our most strongly held convictions about how the world works, how it came to be, the nature of reality, and nature of truth and how we should live.  Most people today have not given much thought to their own world view.  In fact many do not even realize that they have one.  Such people tend to think that all knowledge is acquired by an unbiased observation of the evidence.  This is called "Empiricism" and it is itself a world view.  We cannot help but to have some beliefs about how the world works, how we obtain knowledge and how we should live.  Even if we believe that we have no such beliefs, this is a belief itself.  There is no escaping it.  It is inevitable to have one.  The thing is a rational world view in not.
     A world view is like mental glasses.  It effects the way that we look at the world.  A person wearing red glasses sees everything as being red.  A person wearing evolution glasses sees evolution everywhere.  The world is not really re everywhere, but the glasses do effect our perception of the world and the conclusions that we draw.  The evolutionists sees the world differently then does the Biblical creationist.  We have the exact same facts, but what we make of those facts is colored by our world view.  Thus, we interpret the same evidence differently.  This is why the two PhD scientists can come to two totally different conclusion about the exact same evidence.  This point cannot be overstated.  Much of the frustration that exists in the evolution-creation debate is due to this fact.  The evolutionist and the creationist must interpret the same data differently due to their different world views.
     Many people do not want to accept the fact that all evidence must be interpreted in light of prior beliefs, a faith commitment of some kind.  Again, many have the assumption that evidence should be approached in a neutral and unbiased fashion.  That is without any previous beliefs.  This is impossible to do since this view is itself a belief and not based on any empirical evidence.  It is a belief about how we should look at the evidence.  In order for our observation of evidence to be meaningful, we first have to assume that our senses are reliable.  If our senses are not reliable then any observation is flawed and we cannot empirically test our senses because we have to use the very thing that we are testing.  Since this is the case it does us no good to observe the evidence if we did not believe that our observation were real and reliable.  We cannot avoid wearing mental glasses, having a world view.  The item of importance here is that we need to make sure that we have the correct glasses.  An incorrect pair will draw incorrect conclusions, a correct pair will prevent us from drawing the wrong conclusion and can improve our understanding about the universe.
     A magician saws a woman in half.  Your senses tell you that you saw this happen.  But the conclusion that you draw from it is not based on what you have seen.  You draw your conclusion that it is a trick because you world view prevents you from drawing the wrong conclusion, that the woman was actually cut in half.  Our world view restrains us and guides us in the interpretation of the evidence.  This is true in every aspect of life from origins to our view of the Bible.  Our world view tells us what to make of the evidence.  We all interpret the facts in light of our world view.  Any evidence that seems to challenge our world view can always be explained by invoking a "rescuing device".  Many of the debates and comments about origins (from both sides) are not effective because the opposing sided do not understand the nature of world views, evidence and rescuing devices.  This is the fundamental reason why the parties always leave the debate wondering what is wrong with the other side.  They call the Biblical creationist unreasonable even stupid, yet the same can be said about the Biblical creationist (which should never happen).
     Evidence by itself will never settle the debate, and being such it would appear that there is no rational resolution to the issue.  After all, no matter how compelling the evidence to either side may be,the opponent will always interpret that  evidence in light of their world view.  This being the case, is there any way to rationally resolve this issue?

Let'e Squash Some Bugs Part 2, The Butt, Scott Debate

As we continue to examine the things mentioned in the debate, I wish to this time focus on Mr. Scott's comments on the arguments put forth by Mr. Butt.  Mr. Butt presented the arguments from the cosmological, teleological, moral, free will, and a little of the transcendent.  Mr. Butt presented them in a simplistic and general manner I believe due to the time constraints of the debate.  In Mr. Scott's opening statements, he called those arguments simply philosophical and had no meaning.  He kept demanding for evidence.  He simply rejected them as being philosophical in nature and unreasonable.  Here we find another problem with Mr. Scott's view of the issues.  The question of the existence of God is just that, a philosophical question.  It can only be answered in a philosophical manner.

     The Christian faith as defined by Biblical revelation  teaches a number of things which are not restricted to the realm of man's temporal experience as Mr. Scott would have it. It teaches things about an invisible God, His triune nature, the orgin of the universe, the regularity of the created order, angels, miracles, the afterlife, etc.  These are the types of claims which I believe Mr. Scott most often find objections to.
     The objection is that such claims are about transcendent matters, things that go beyond our everyday to day human experience.  The triune Creator exists beyond the temporal order, the after life is not part of our ordinary observations in this world.  Those such as Mr. Scott are accustomed to thinking that people can only know things based upon, and pertaining to, the "here and now".  Since he thinks this way (those who have seen the debate will notice this fact), then the claims of Christianity about the transcendent are an intellectual reproach.

     Those who are not Christians will often assume that the natural world is all there is, in which case nobody can know things about the "super natural" (hence the reason Mr. Scott makes the statement that science never asks why and that the why is irrelevant).  In philosophical circle, discussions and debates about questions like these fall within the area of study known as "metaphysics."  As you might expect, this division of philosophical investigation is usually the hotbed of controversy between conflicting schools of thought.  More recently, the entire enterprise of metaphysics has itself become a hotbed of controversy.
      Over the last 2 centuries a mindset has developed which is hostile toward any philosophical claim which is metaphysical in character.  It is clear that antipathy to the the Christian faith has been the primary and motivating factor in such attacks.  Nevertheless, such criticism has been generalized into a pervasive antagonism toward any claims which are "metaphysical".  This attitude has been one of the crucial ingredients which have molded culture and history over the last 2 hundred years.  It has altered common views regarding man and ethics, it has generated a radical reformation of religious beliefs, and it has significantly affected perspectives ranging from politics to pedagogy  Consequently a very large number of the skeptical questions or challenges directed at the Christian faith are either rooted in, or colored by, this negative spirit with regard to metaphysics.

     Before we can elaborate on Mr. Scott's problem with his statements and the arguments that he presented, it would be helpful to understand better what is meant by "metaphysics".  This is just a technical word that is rarely used outside of the academic circles, it is not even a part of the Christian vocabulary.  Nevertheless, the conception of metaphysics and the reaction to it which can be found will definitely touch and have an impact on the life of the Christian either in terms of the attacks of the faith in which he or she must answer, or even in terms of the way in which they portray the faith in everyday life.
     It is often said that metaphysics is the study of being or studies being, that is, questions about existence.  It asks, what is it to exist?  And, what sorts of things exist?  Thus the meta-physician is interested to know to know about fundamental distinctions (the essential nature of things that exist) and important similarities (the essential nature of the members of these classes).  He seeks the ultimate causes or explanations for the existence and nature of things.  He wants to understand the limits of possible reality, the modes of existing, and the interrelations of existing things.
     It should be obvious, if only in an elementary way, that Christianity propounds a number of definite metaphysical claims.  But we need to understand that Mr. Scott also holds to a philosophical meta-physic himself (even though he would deny this).  It would be profitable to pause and reflect upon an insightful comment by a recent writer in this area.  W.H. Walsh has written, "It must be allowed that the reaction against (meta-physics) has been so violent indeed as to suggest that the issues involved in the controversy must be something more than academic.).  He would be correct.  The issues are indeed more than academic.  They are a matter of life and death-eternal life and death.  Jesus said, "And this is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent." (John 17:3).  However, if the unbeliever can stand on the claim that such a God cannot be known because nothing transcending the physical (nothing :metaphysical") can be known, then the issue of eternal destiny is not raised.  Accordingly, men may think and do as they please, without distracting questions about their nature and destiny.
     The fact is that one cannot avoid metaphysical commitments (no matter how much Mr. Scott tries to "sweep them under the carpet").  The very denial of the possibility of knowledge transcending experience is in itself a metaphysical judgement.  Mr. Scott demands evidence.  I believe that when stating this he is not being forth right with the audience.  When he says evidence in reality he means something that can be placed in the test tube and examined through the avenue of science and experience.  This is why he denies the evidence given in the debate.  Again, this is a meta-physical assumption on his part, that all legitimate knowledge is gained by the scientific method.  Mr. Scott deals with philosophy at every turn in the debate, yet denies that it is relevant to the question.  Friedrich Nietzsche had something to say along these lines when he stated:
     "What provokes one to look at all philosophers half suspiciously, half mockingly, is that they all pose as if they had discovered and reached their real opinions through self-development of a cold, pure, divinely unconcerned dialectic while at bottom it is an assumption, a hunch, indeed a kind of "inspiration"-most often a desire of the heart that has been filtered and made absract-that they defend with reasons they have sought after the fact.  They are all advocates and willy spokesmen to their prejudices which they "baptize" "truths".

     Mr. Scott's arguments can be set up as thus;
     1) There cannot be a non-empirical  source of knowledge or information about reality, and
     2) It is illegitimate to draw inferences from what is experienced by the senses to what must lie outside of          experiences.

     When we listen to the comments made by Mr. Scot in the debate, we can see that the above reflects accurately his meta-physic.  In short, we can only know as factually significant what we cn experience directly with our senses-which nullifies the meaningfulness of meta-physical claims and the possibility of metaphysical knowledge.
      We can begin our response by considering #2 in the above. We should first ask why it is that we should not reason from what is known in sense experience to something lying beyond sensation.  After all, is not this exactly what the empirical scientists do on a day to day bases.  They continually reason from the seen to the unseen, (subatomic particles, computing gravitational forces, warning against the effect of radiation simply on the basis of its effect, prescribing medicine for an unseen infection on the basis of an observed fever, etc.).  It certainly appears capricious for Mr. Scott to prohibit Mr. Butt from doing what is allowed to the scientist!!  Such an inconsistency betrays a mind that has been made up in advance against certain kinds of conclusions about reality.  This is exactly what Mr. Scott was arguing in connection with the teleological argument.  He dismisses it since he cannot seen God.
     Moreover, it is important to notice in #2 above that it is not really relevant to making the case against the Christian meta physic.  Christianity does not view its claims as unguided or arbitrary attempts to reason from the seen to the unseen world-unwarranted projections from nature to what lies beyond.. In the firstplace, the Christan claims that God created this world to reflect His glory and to be a constant testimony to Him and His character (Romans 1:18-20).  God also created man in His own image, determined the way in which man would think and learn about the world, and coordinated man's mind and the objective world so that man would unavoidably know the supernatural creator through the conduit of the created realm.  God intended and made it unavoidable that man would learn about the Creator from the world around him.  This amount to saying that the natural world is not in itself random and without a clue as to its ultimate maning, leaving man to arbitrary speculation.
     Moreover, given the intellectually corrupting effects of man's fall into sin and rebellion against God, man's mind has not been left to know God based on the basis of man's own unaided experience and interpretation of the world.  God has undertaken to make Himself known to man by means of verbal revelation, using words chosen by God which are exactly appropriate for the mind of man that was created by God to come to the correct conclusions about his Creator, Judge, and Redeemer.
     The Christan meta-physic is not the result of a self-sufficient exploration of, and argument from man's unaided and brute emperiical experience, to a god lying beyond and behind experience,  Rather it affirms, on the basis of Scripture's declaration, that our meta-physical tenets rest on the self-revelation of the transcendent Creator.  The Christan meta-physic does not work from man to God, but from God to man (2 Peter 1:21).
      Therefore this anti meta-physical claim by Mr. Scott begs the main question.  If God as portrayed in the Scriptures does indeed exist, then there is no reason to preclude the possibility that man who lives in the realm of nature can gain knowledge of the supernatural.  God creator and controls all things, according to the Biblical account (Gen.1&2; Heb. 1:3).  Given that perspective, God could certainly bring it about that man learns the truth about Him through both the created order and a set of divinely inspired messages.  When Mr. Scott contends that nothing in man's temporal, limited,natural experience can provide knowledge of the supernatural, he is simply taking a roundabout way of saying that the Biblical account of a God who makes Himself known in the created order and Scripture is mistaken.
     This begging the question is sometimes veiled from the unbeliever by there tendency to recast the nature of the Christian meta-physic as man centered and rooted initially in human, empirical experience.  However, the very point in contention between the two meta-physics comes down to the claim that Christan teaching is rooted in God's self-disclosure of the truth as found in the world around us and in the written word.  There is not reason to think the the Christan would be intellectually required to build upon the foundation of human sense experience, unless someone were presupposing in advance that all knowledge must ultimately derive from empirical procedure.  But this is the very question at hand.  Mr. Scott is not supporting his reason for rejecting The Christian meta-physic, it is simply a rewording of that rejection itself.
   
     We are brought then to #1 in the above, the first and foundational step in Mr. Scott's meta-physic.  What are we to make of the assertion "all significan knowledge about the objective world is empirical in nature"?  The most obvious and philosophically significant reply would be that is the preceding statement were true, then, on the basis of that claim, we could never know that it were true.  Why?  Simply because that statement in question is not itself known as the result of empirical testing and experience.  Therefore, according to its own strict standards, the statement could not amount to significant knowledge about the objective world.  It simply reflect the subjective (perhaps meaningless) bias of the one who pronounces it.  Hence, Mr. Scott not only has his own preconceived conclusions, but it turns out that he cannot live according to them (Romans 2:1).  On the basis of his own assumptions he refutes himself.

     The very question of the existence of God is a meta-physical question.  Contrary to the assertions of Mr. Scott, it is a philosophical question and must be answered in that matter.  We have not had time in this post to cover the true nature of evidence, will come later so be on the look out.  The basis of this post is to show the error in the thoughts of Mr. Scott.  He has a meta-physic.  He has a philosophy.  He has a world view.  The question then becomes which is true, his or the Christian?  I contend that it is the Christian meta-physic since it and it alone can stand up to careful scrutiny.  All others have some sort of inconsistency within them.  That includes atheism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc... 
    
    





 

 

Arguments against the Teleological Argument

 We have looked at the teleological argument for the existence of God (if you have not read them, please take a few minutes and familiarize yourself with them).  Of course those who are against the faith have their arguments that try to demolish the argument.  Please find here the most common of them and my answers to them.



1) Some of the defenses of the premises use unprovable assumptions.
    A) For example, we cannot prove that if the earth were closer to the sun that a
         negative effect would transpire and life on earth would not be possible.
    B) Remember what we are trying to do with our arguments.  We can never prove
         anything 100 %. 
        1) You cannot prove 100% that you exist.  There is only one way to do this.
             You must exit your body and observe yourself in a state of existence.  This we
             cannot do.  It is physically impossible.  What is the answer then. Can we
             come to any type of conclusion about our own existence.  Yes we can.
             We need to remember three things, 1) What is the evidence? 2) What
             is the plausibility of you existing? 3) We must use our own reasoning
             and common sense.
            a) Is there any evidence that you exist.  Well, you are reading this.
                You are thinking about the things written.  Have someone punch
                in the arm, go ahead.  Did you feel any pain?  Someone once said,
                “I think, therefore I am.”  These two areas are evidence that you exist.
                1) You are capable of thinking.
                2) You can feel things that are physical in nature.
            b) Based on these two (there are others that can be added, just trying
                to keep it simple) what is more plausible?  That you do in fact exist,
                or that you do not exist.  Based on the evidence, it is more plausible
                that you do exist.  In fact, the plausibility of your existence is so
                overwhelming, it is reasonable to conclude it is a fact.
            c) Besides, common sense tells us that we do.
        2) This is the same with this objection.  No, we can not prove 100% that the
            defenses are fact.  But the plausibility of them being fact is so overwhelming
            that it is reasonable to conclude that they are fact.

2) The Anthropic Principle
    A) The Anthropic principle is this, the universe is tailor-made for habitation, and that
         both the laws of physics and the initial conditions obligingly arranged themselves in
         such a way that living organisms are subsequently assured of existence.
    B) Well, DAH!  Of course they are.  We are here.  The only difference is we know the
         Tailor who made it so. 
    C) This is really not a strong argument.  In fact, realizing the obvious implications of the
         scientific evidence for the Anthropic principle, many evolutionary scientists have
         rebelled at even the mere mention of it in the halls of science.




3) God of the Gaps
    A) It is often stated something like this, “ Just because we do not know how something
         came about does not mean we can or should insert God as the cause.”
    B) This is an argument from ignorance.  The Design argument is based on our everyday
         design inference.  When we see something that looks designed, that is what we infer.
    C) We use the design inference on a daily bases.  Even scientists, whether they want to
         admit it or not, use it on a daily basis in their everyday work.  A doctor and a
         mechanic diagnose the same way.  They each look within the machine to identify
         what has gone wrong.  The mechanic looks at the engine to see if one of the parts
         has malfunctioned or if something has entered in to disrupt the machines inner
         workings.  They make the inference to design since the all the parts have to be
         working properly in order for the machine to function as it should.  The doctor in
         essence does the exact same thing. They look at the inner parts to see what is not
         functioning properly.  They to make the same inference to design since all the
         parts of the system have to be working properly in order for the system to work.
         By identifying the problem, they then can correct it.
    D) All the argument does is show that some intelligent being has designed the
         system.  We do not know what that intelligent being is.  It could have been aliens
         for all we know.  This is a possible explanation.  (Although I personally do not
         believe that aliens exist.)  Do not get caught up in this trap.  They are making
         assumptions that the argument is not asserting.

4) Darwin has shown that variations and natural selection can account for the
     appearance of design.
    A) We will deal with this more readily when we refute the evolutionary theory.
    B) This rebuttal is primarily focused at the biochemical design argument.
    C) If it can be shown that mutations and natural selection can produce the complex
         systems such as the blood clotting cascade, then their argument stands.  Yet, as
         of today, none have been put forward.  Perhaps we can understand why
         detailed models are missing from the evolutionists by asking what a real
         scientific investigation of mousetrap evolution would be like.  They would first
         have to think of a precursor to the modern mousetrap, one that was simpler. 
         Suppose they started with a wooden platform?  No, that will not catch mice.
         Suppose they started with a modern mousetrap that has a shortened holding
         bar?  No, if the bar is too short it would not reach the catch, and the trap would
         spring uselessly while they were holding it.  Suppose they started with a smaller
         trap?  No, that would not explain the complexity.  Suppose the parts developed
         individually for other functions-such as a popsicle stick for the platform, a clock
         spring for the trap spring, and so on- and then accidentally got together?  No, their
         previous functions would leave them unfit for trapping mice, and they still have
         to explain how they gradually developed into a mousetrap.  If they cannot explain
         the mousetrap, which is simple compared to the systems of the body, it is easy
         to see why there are no attempts to give an evolutionary explanation.
   
       
    D) A pertinent question to ask now is, “How do we know things?”  Without getting
         into the discipline of epistemology, there are really only two ways that we know
         things.  1) Through personal experience and 2) By authority.
        1) If you make the positive knowledge statement that the walls in your house
            are green, how exactly do you know that?  It is through personal experience.
            You know the walls in your house are green because you live there and saw
              that they are green.  Similarly you know what a bird is, how gravity works
            (in an everyday sense), And how to get to the nearest shopping mall, all by
            direct experience.
        2) If you make the positive knowledge statement that the earth revolves around
            the sun, how exactly do you know this?  It is by authority.  That is, you rely
            on some source on information, believing it to be reliable, when you have no
            experience of your own.  Anyone who has attended school believes that the
            earth goes around the sun, even though only a few have the knowledge of how
            to detect this. 
    E) Scientists are people too, so we can ask how they know what they know.  They are
         like everyone else, they rely upon personal experience and, or authority.
        1) No one has personal experience in the evolution of complex biochemical
            systems.  It does not happen in the lab.  In fact, there is an ongoing
            experiment that is testing the validity of the mutation, natural selection theory.
            They use a bacteria that the generations come and go at a rapid pace.  They
            have gone through about 40,000 generations.  As of yet, there have been no
            noticeable changes in the bacteria.  Therefore they cannot say that the reason
            that they know it has happened this way is through personal experience.
        2) It is also not based on authority.  There is no publication in scientific
            literature- prestigious journal, specialty journals, or books- that describes
            how evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or
            even might have occurred.  There are assertions that such evolution occurred,
            but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.
        3) Since no one knows biochemical evolution by direct experience, and since
            there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can be said that
            the assertions of biochemical evolution is merely bluster.       

5) Design is not science
    A) This rebuttal goes something like this, “ Since we do not have access to the designer,
         we have no way to falsify the concept.”
    B) This is hypocritical on their part.  A great example of science and design is the SETI
         (stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)
         project.  This project was stated in the early 60's, but did not really get started until
         Carl Sagan founded the Planetary Society.  It was a vehicle to advance the SETI
         program.  Simply, the program uses radio telescopes to search the skies for
         intelligent life.  Basically, millions of dollars (some of which were tax payers
         dollars) were pumped into a project to detect codes or messages from outer space
         that would indicate intelligence.  Those involved in the project recognized that
         mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other
         “fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence
         did exist.  The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that
         Intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligence, natural
         explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code,
         mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc.  Such codes have been found in
         biochemical systems.
    C) The two are basically the same.  They are both looking for design in nature.  The
         SETI scientists are looking for things that do not occur naturally.  If they were to
         come across something such as that, then they would immediately infer design.
         It would be on the front page of every newspaper that intelligent life exists
         elsewhere in the universe.  No one would begin to question the statement even
         though we could not test the being that designed the signal or whatever.  The same
         is true for the biochemical design we see in the body.  We see something that looks
         designed.  Just as with the SETI people, we naturally infer design.  No, we cannot
         test the designer, but just as with SETI, we do not have to for it to be science.  We
         are justified to infer the design concept.

5) Just trying to get religion into the schools
    A) This is a bad assumption on their part.
    B) It has nothing to do with religion. 
    C) Who the intelligent designer is, is not what the argument is showing.  Of course
         the next logical step would be to say that it is God.  But that is apart from this
         argument.
    D) This, I believe, is just an attempt to curtail the discussion from what it is about
         in order not to deal with the argument.  It would be kind of like putting a band aid
         on a severed limb.  It just will not help the situation. 

6) Does not prove a creator
    A) This is true, but the argument does have value.
    B) We need to recognize the fact that the teleological argument does not prove
         an infinite, Necessary being who created the universe out of nothing.  The
         Cosmological argument is intended to accomplish this.  However, when combined
         with the cosmological argument the teleological argument does show that the
         infinite cause of all finite being is an intelligent one, which is evidenced by the
         extremely complex design manifested in the universe. 

7) The perfection problem
    A) Stated as such, “It does not prove the existence of God.”
        1) The fact that the world is full of chaos indicates that there was no designer
            and that it is best explained by natural phenomena.
        2) The fact that mankind is plagued with disease, sickness, suffering indicates
             that an intelligent being could not and would not design something so sloppy.
    B) This is usually a rebuttal against the God of the Bible.
    C) This is faulty on their part, since we are not arguing for the God of the Bible using
         this argument.  The only thing that the argument is stating is that there is design
         in the universe that requires an intelligent being. 
    D) It is also faulty since we do not know at this point what the intelligent being had
         in mind at the start.  Could it not have purposely designed it in such a way as to have
         the chaos, disease, and suffering as a part of its original plan?  Possibly.  (We will
         examine this further when we discuss the issue of evil, pain, and suffering.)  Also
         what makes mankind’s definition of perfection the “rule of law”?  Just because
         mankind does not see it as perfection does not of necessity mean it is imperfect.
           There are many buildings that I would say are really not very appealing to the eye.
         Of course the designer of the building would disagree with my view of what he has
         designed.  Who is correct? 

8) Multi universe theory
    A) The multiverse theory is the hypothetical set of multiple universes that together
         comprise all of reality.
            1) It is argued that if this theory is correct then the design argument fails.
        2) With the increase in number of universes, the probability of one having
               the exact chemistry (for lack of a better word) for life to come into existence
            becomes greater and greater. 
        3) Not only does it become more probably, it becomes plausible.
    B) The major problem with this theory is the fact that we have absolutely NO
         Empirical evidence to even suggest such.  This theory laughs in the face of all
         science.  Science is not based on wishes.  It is based on evidence. 
    C) Since this theory has none, it should not even be considered.

Conclusion
    The teleological argument, as such, is a highly plausible but not absolutely certain argument for intelligent design manifested in the world.  Chance is possible though not plausible.  The teleological evidence favors the unity of this cause since this world is really a universe, not a multi universe.  This is especially evident in view of the anthropic principle which reveals that the world, life, and humankind were anticipated from the very moment of the origin of the material universe.
    The teleological argument as such does not demand that this cause be absolutely perfect.  Nor does it explain the presence of evil and disorder in the world.  The teleological argument is dependent on the cosmological and moral argument to establish these other aspects of the theistic God.
    It is really a casual argument from effect to cause, only it argues from the intelligent nature of the effect to an intelligent cause.  This point is important.  For if the principle of causality cannot be supported, the admittedly one cannot insist that there must be a cause or ground of the design in the world.  Design might just be there without a cause.  Only if there is a purpose for everything can it follow that the world must have a purposer.  The teleological argument depends on the cosmological argument in the important sense that it borrows from it the principle of causality.  As can be readily seen from every form of the design argument, the underlying assumption is that there needs to be a cause for the order in the world.  Deny this and the argument fails, for the alleged design would merely be gratuitous.
       

The Teleological argument part 2

The Teleological Argument for God   Part 2
1) The Argument
    A) If the universe evinces purposeful design, there must have been a designer.
    B) The universe does evince purposeful design.
    C) Thus, the universe must have had a designer.

2) Defense of the Argument
    A) Premise A
        1) This is a logical and reasonable statement. 
        2) It is more plausibly true then its counterpart that if the universe evinces
            purposeful design, there must not have been a designer.
        3) Design implies a designer.
        4) This is usually not the objection to the argument.  Most rational persons
            will conceded this first premise.
    B) Premise B
        1) This is where most of the objections come from.
        2) From Richard Dawkins book “The Blind Watchmaker”:
            “There may be good reasons for belief in God, but the argument
            from design is not one of them...[D]espite all appearances to the
            contrary, there is no watchmaker in nature beyond the blind forces
            of physics...Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet
            essentially nonrandom process that Darwin discovered, and that we
            now understand to be the explanation for the existence and form
            of all life, has no mind’s eye, It does not plan for the future.  It has
            no vision, no foresight, no sight at all.  If it can be said to play the
            role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.”
        3) The disagreement between the theist and atheist is not whether design
            demands a designer.  Rather, the point of contention is whether or not
            there is design in nature adequate to substantiate the conclusion that
            a designer does, in fact, exist.
        4) We can infer design by the universal constants that are observed in nature.
             How did these come about?  These had to be in place before anything could
             begin.  (Look at the bottom of the post, there are 33)
        5) We can infer design from the universe itself.
            a) The universe is tremendously large.  Even though its outer limits
                have not been measured, it is estimated to be as much as 20 billion
                light years in diameter.  There are an estimated 1 billion galaxies in
                the universe, and an estimated 25 sextillion stars.  The Milky Way
                Galaxy consists of over 100 billion stars, and is so large that even
                traveling at the speed of light it would require 100,000 years to cross.
            b) The sun converts 8 million tons of matter into energy every second
                 and has an interior temperature of more than 20 million degrees.  It
                also produces intense radiation, which, in certain amounts, can be
                deadly to living things.
            c) The earth is located at exactly the correct distance from the Sun to
                receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to sustain life.  The
                earth is located 93 million miles from the sun.  This distance is just
                right to help stop the destructive pressure waves given off by the sun
                as it converts matter to energy.  If we were 10% closer, life could
                not survive because of the intense heat and pressure.  If we were 10%
                 farther away, too little heat  would be absorbed.
            d) We receive some protection from the sun’s radiation because in one
                of the layers of the atmosphere, there is a special form of oxygen known
                as ozone, which filters out most of the ultraviolet rays from the sun.  In
                addition, the sun constantly sends out an invisible wind that is
                composed of protons and electrons.  These particles approach the earth
                at extremely high speeds.  Fortunately, most of these particles are
                reflected back into space because the earth acts like a giant magnet
                and pushes these particles away.
            e) The earth is rotating on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator
                and is moving around the sun at 7,000 miles per hour, while the sun
                and solar system are moving through space at 600,000 miles per
                hour.  This rotation provides period of light and darkness which is
                necessary to life to exist.  If the earth were rotating much faster,
                fierce cyclones would stir over the earth like a kitchen food mixer.
                If the earth turned slower, the days and nights would be impossibly hot
                or cold.
            f) The earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle, but is elliptical.  This means that
                sometimes the earth is closer to the sun than at other times.  In January,
                the earth is closest to the sun; in July, it is the farthest away.  When it is
                closer, the earth speeds up to avoid being pulled into the sun, when it is
                farthest away, it slows down so that it remains in position.
            g) The earth moves in its orbit around the sun, it departs from a straight
                line by only one-ninth of an inch every eighteen miles.  If it departed by
                one-eight of an inch, we would come so close to the sun that we would
                be incinerated; if it departed by one-tenth of an inch, we would find
                ourselves so far from the sun that we would all freeze to death.
            h) The earth is poised at about 240,000 miles from the moon.  The moon
                helps control the movement of the ocean tides.  This movement is very
                beneficial to life on earth.  Without it the oceans would stagnate, and
                the animals and plants would perish.  The existence of life on the earth
                depends greatly on the tides, which help to balance the delicate food
                chain.  If the moon were moved just 5% closer to the earth, the tides
                would reach about 30-50 feet higher and cover most of the earth.
            i) Water covers about 72% of the earths surface.  This is good because
                the oceans provide a reservoir of moisture that constantly evaporates
                and condenses.  This motion of water causes rain to fall upon the
                earth.  Water also heats and cools at a much slower rate than solid
                land mass, which explains why desert regions can be blistering hot
                in the daytime and freezing at night.   Water, however, holds its
                Temperature longer, and provides a sort of natural heating/air-
                conditioning system for the earth.  Temperature extremes would
                be much more erratic if it were not for the fact that the earth’s
                surface were not covered with 4/5ths water.  Also, humans and
                animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide while plants
               inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. We depend upon the
                of plants for our oxygen, yet we often fail to realize that
                approximately 90% of our oxygen comes from microscopic plants
                in the seas.  If the oceans were any smaller, we would be out of air
                to breath.
            j) The statistical improbability of the universe just happening by blind
                chance is staggering.  The odds of such an event happening has been
                estimated at about 1 in 10 to the 1000th power.  That is a one followed
                by 1000 zeroes.  Mathematicians say that anything at 1 in 10 to the 50th
                power and above is impossible to come to pass.  “Astronomy leads us
                to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one
                with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions
                Required to permit life, and one which has an underlying plan.”
        6) Fine tuning of the universe from the beginning
            a) Due to either law, chance, or design
            b)Not due to law or chance
            c) Therefore it is due to design.
            d) Constants of nature
                1) When the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical
                    equations, you find appearing in them certain constants
                    which are the same across the board. Law of gravity.
                    F=Gx(M1xM2)divided by R squared
                    G will always be the same and is independent from the
                    laws of nature.
                2) They were put in at the creation and are contingent.
                3) It has been estimated that if the constant for gravity
                    were changed by 1 part in 10 to the 100th power, life
                    could not exist in this universe.
            e) Arbitrary quantities
                1) These are the initial conditions that are just put in at
                    the beginning of the universe on which the laws of
                    nature then operate. 
                2) Example is the low amount of entropy that was put in at
                    the beginning of the universe as an initial condition.
                3) The ratio of matter to anti-matter was put into the universe.
            f) Scientists have shown that these initial conditions and constants
                must have been fined tuned to incomprehensible precision in order
                for this universe to exist and also to permit life to exist within it.
            g) Used to think that no matter what the initial conditions were, given
                enough time, they would come into alignment and allow life to exist.
            h) Some estimates indicate that there are over 100 of these initial
                conditions within the universe.
            i) In order for them all to align so that the universe could be life
                permitting could not have been by chance.
            j) Probability
                1) Probability is defined as the chance or likelihood that a
                    certain event will happen.
                2) Again, mathematicians estimate that any thing with odds
                    greater than 1 in 10 to the 50th power are not possible.  The
                    odds of all the initial conditions to come into existence by
                    chance at the same time and in the right dimensions are about
                    1 in 10 to the1000th power.
                3) Example: The fine-tuning that we see in the universe is
                    comparable to randomly throwing a dart the entire breath
                    of the universe and hitting a target 1" in diameter.
                4) Example: The range for this to happen is so infinitesimal
                    that if you had a radio dial the breath of the universe, you would
                    have a range of 2 centimeters to dial in the station.
                5) Example: If you had to pull a white ball out of a tank filled
                    with 100,000 black balls in order for you to continue to live,
                    would you even speculate that you could.  How about having
                    to do this, say, 100 times in a row.  How confident would you
                    be in that venture?  Would anyone bet on you?
                5) Is it plausible and reasonable to conclude that it happened by
                    chance?  No, in any other instance this would be impossible
                    and would never be given a second thought.
        7) Self-sustaining earth
            a) Water cycle
                1) We all have studied this fact of nature.
                2) Water, in liquid form, evaporates due to the heat of the sun.
                    As it rises into the air, the higher it gets the cooler it becomes
                    since the air is cooler the higher you get. 
                3) As the water vapor rises it begins to condense on minuet
                    particles in the air and starts to turn back into water.
                4) As the water accumulates on the particle, it begins to
                    increase in weight and eventually falls back to earth in
                    the form of rain.
                5) The rain falls to the ground and accumulates in pools and
                    streams, rivers, lakes, and the ocean.
                6) Then the process starts all over again.
                7) With this, the earth is constantly replenishing and cleaning
                     its water supply.
                8) How has this come about?  What natural mechanism would
                    account for such a principle?  None, the only logical and
                    plausible reason is design.
            b) Breathable air
                1) The earth has a unique way of producing life sustaining
                    air for all living things.
                2) As you know, We all need oxygen in order to survive.
                3) Have you ever wondered why we never run out?
                4) It comes from the plants.  In fact about 90% of it comes
                    from the small plant life in the oceans.
                5) The plants give off the oxygen we need to sustain life,
                    in turn, we give off carbon dioxide which the plants “breath”.
                6) If this process did not occur, life on earth would have ceased
                    to exist long ago.
                7) Was this just by chance?  Again, what would be the mechanism
                    that would put this interaction into place?
            c) The food chain
                1) Plants use the sun and nutrients from the soil as “food”.
                2) Animals (herbivores) eat these plants for their nourishment.
                3) In turn, animals (omnivores and carnivores) eat these herbivores
                    for their nourishment.
                4) Once the herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores excrete their
                    waste, it is now time for the bacteria and things to have their fill.
                    They reduce the waste into nutrients for the plants to consume.
                5) The process starts all over again.
                6) This is a very simple explanation of the food chain, but it shows
                    the self-sufficient nature of the earth.

UNIVERSAL CONSTANTS

1. Strong nuclear force constant:
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry;
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

2. Weak nuclear force constant:
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible;
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

3. Gravitational force constant:
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry;
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

4. Electromagnetic force constant:
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission;
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant:
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the Sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support;
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the Sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

6. Ratio of electron to proton mass:
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry;
if smaller: same as above ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons:
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation;
if smaller: same as above

8. Expansion rate of the Universe:
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: Universe would collapse, even before stars formed entropy level of the Universe

9. Entropy level of the Universe:
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies;
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

10. Mass density of the Universe:
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form;
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

11. Velocity of light:
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support;
if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support

12. Initial uniformity of radiation:
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed;
if less uniform: Universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

13. Average distance between galaxies:
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the Universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the Sun’s orbit

14. Density of galaxy cluster:
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun’s orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

15. Average distance between stars:
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

16. Fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines):
if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the Sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the Sun

17. Decay rate of protons:
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: Universe would contain insufficient matter for life

18. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio:
if larger: Universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: Universe would contain insufficient carbon for life

19. Ground state energy level for 4He:
if larger: Universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above

20. Decay rate of 8Be:
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

21. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass:
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes

22. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons:
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

23. Polarity of the water molecule:
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

24. Supernovae eruptions:
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

25. White dwarf binaries:
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

26. Ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass:
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form

27. Number of effective dimensions in the early Universe:
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result

28 Number of effective dimensions in the present Universe:
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result

29. Mass of the neutrino:
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

30. Big bang ripples:
if smaller: galaxies would not form; Universe would expand too rapidly:
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; Universe would collapse before life-site could form

31. Size of the relativistic dilation factor:
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result

32. Uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

33. Cosmological constant:
if larger: Universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars (see: “Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Universe”).