Lines of Evidence: How Recent Science Infers the Existence of God

By Rick Jory

Secular science demands we accept the philosophical dogma of scientific materialism—that only material entities exist. Yet recent science has discovered the immaterial!

Also mandated is the assumption that all things must be explained by natural causes. But we now are certain that the universe had a beginning. There was a time when “nature” didn’t exist—and yet we must attribute the origin of the universe to nature!

And what about Darwin’s theory of evolution—taken as fact that every plant and animal owe its origin to a common ancestor and naturalistic causes. At the time of Darwin, over a century and a half ago, no one knew the true complexity of the cell. We now know the simplest of living organisms has 159,662 base pairs of DNA and 182 protein-coding genes. What naturalistic cause put all of this together? Could this be assembled by blind, purposeless accident? What does recent science have to say?

And what about recent discoveries in origin-of-life research? Do we now know enough to suggest life could not have created itself?

A lot is happening in today’s science that is best explained through the Christian worldview. Let’s see what some of today’s scientists are now saying.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Austin Macauley Publishers
• Release date: Aug 18, 2023
• ISBN: 9781035817900

Rick Jory

Dr. Rick Jory has authored the two-volume work, A Forty-Day Study of the Biblical Story as well as A Forty-Day Study of John’s Gospel, A Forty-Day Study of the Book of Hebrews, and A Forty-Day Study on Sin, Salvation, and Sanctification. This book completes this series. After forty-three years in the business world, upon the sale of his company, Dr. Jory formalized his passion for studying the Bible. He received his Master of Arts degree, Biblical Studies - New Testament, from Denver Seminary in 2012; the Doctor of Ministry, with emphasis in Theological Exegesis, from Knox Theological Seminary in 2017, and his Doctor of Educational Ministry, with emphasis in Adult Christian Education, from Dallas Theological Seminary in 2019. His ministry today includes teaching pastors and church leaders in Vietnam. He is the founder of Friends of Vietnam Ministries, a non-profit organization aiding several Vietnamese faith-based centers that provide care to Vietnamese orphans and at-risk children, as well as scholarships to help young Vietnamese attend Bible college.

Book preview

About the Author

Dr Jory spent 43 years in the business world. For the last nineteen years of this career, he was president and CEO of a medical device manufacturing company headquartered in the outskirts of Denver, Colorado. He received a Bachelor of Industrial Engineering degree from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1970, followed by a Master of Business Administration from Georgia State University in 1972. His interest in using his God-given gifts and God-provided opportunities led to an active involvement in marketplace ministry, business as mission, and church ministry. He received his Master of Arts degree, Biblical Studies – New Testament, from Denver Seminary in 2012; the Doctor of Ministry, with emphasis in Theological Exegesis, from Knox Theological Seminary in 2017, and his Doctor of Educational Ministry, with emphasis in Adult Christian Education, from Dallas Theological Seminary in 2019. His ministry work today includes the teaching of pastors and church leaders in Vietnam. He is the founder of Friends of Vietnam Ministries, a non-profit organisation aiding several Vietnamese faith-based centres that provide care to Vietnamese orphans and at-risk children, as well as scholarships to help young Vietnamese attend Bible college.

Copyright Information ©

Rick Jory 2023

The right of Rick Jory to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by the author in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.

Any person who commits any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events, locales, and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.

A CIP catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

ISBN 9781035817894 (Paperback)

ISBN 9781035817900 (ePub e-book)

www.austinmacauley.com

First Published 2023

Austin Macauley Publishers Ltd®

1 Canada Square

Canary Wharf

London

E14 5AA

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the scientists who have opened a whole new world of scientific endeavour by breaking the chains of forced scientific dogma and its associated censorship—people like Douglas Axe, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Michael Denton, Marcos Eberlin, Michael Egnor, Eric Hedin, and Stephen Meyer. These are brilliant men who have done amazing work, despite past years of being marginalised and ridiculed. As science continues its search for the truth, the work and insights of these men are becoming more accepted and appreciated.

The raising of the right questions is

the necessary beginnings of scholarship,

and frequently its most important result.

Ernst Käsemann

Every important realm of science is worthy of

continual re-evaluation. The idea that a field of inquiry

is settled science and therefore and must be excluded

from scientific challenge is detrimental to science.

Henry F. Schaefer III, Professor

of Chemistry and Director of the

Computational Chemistry, University

of Georgia.

I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery.

If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science.

Dr Rebecca Keller

Biophysical Chemistry

The scientific materialist would say that we must only consider

11purely material explanations if we are to behave as proper scientists.

That’s a dogmatic philosophical rule, not a scientific observation.

We won’t get closer to knowing th11e truth by genuflecting before a

dogmatic rule. We would do well, rather, to tease out

the evidence and follow where it leads…

Eric Hedin

PhD Experimental Plasma Physics

One cannot be exposed to the law and order

of the universe without concluding that there must be

design and purpose behind it all…The better we understand

the intricacies of the universe and all it harbours,

the more reason we have found to marvel upon

the inherent design on which it is based.

To be forced to believe only one conclusion—

that everything happened by chance—

would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Werner von Braun

Aerospace Engineer and Visionary

Darwin’s theory of evolution relies heavily on the

tendentious, usually unstated assumption of materialism:

the idea that the only things that really exist are matter and energy

in the physical universe. If one begins with that assumption,

then one has neatly gotten rid of the chief rival to evolution,

which has seemed much more plausible to the greatest minds

throughout history: that a supernatural entity, God,

possessed of great power and intellect,

designed the cosmos and the life it contains.

Michael J. Behe

Professor of Biological Science

Over and over again,

I have encountered materialistic fanaticism

from people who are not ready to give up their views in the face of contrary evidence. Actually, they usually are not even interested in considering the evidence.

If something possesses a common hallmark

of intelligent design—namely, the sophisticated arrangement

of parts that accomplishes some striking purpose—

one cannot rationally refute the design hypothesis simply by

ruling that explanation out of court from the outset.

The atmosphere in our universities is now completely different

from that of the open discussions that were common

in the ’70s and ’80s. Today naturalism controls the universities

so completely that debates about the problem of evolution

are rarely tolerated.

Matti Leisola

Bioengineer, Former Dean of Chemistry

And Material Sciences, Helsinki

University of Technology

What a strange reversal of fortune it seems. Far from the

idea that science and faith are enemies, or that science is

increasingly pushing back any need we have for God, we discover

that the forward march of science is instead pushing back the argument

against God. The Creator God of the Bible is a God

whose existence is increasingly bolstered by science.

Eric Metaxas

Author of Is Atheism Dead

Essentially, I realised that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence…In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.

Lee Strobel

There is nothing God does not wish to be

investigated and understood by reason.

Tertullian (ca. 160–ca. 225)

The person without the Spirit

does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God

but considers them foolishness.

See to it that no one takes you captive

through hollow and deceptive philosophy,

which depends on human tradition

and the elemental spiritual forces of this world

rather than on Christ.

The Apostle Paul

To a believer no proof is necessary,

to an unbeliever no proof is enough.

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Preface

Who made atheists our cosmic authority?

Why do they set the rules?

They mandate to the scientific community the philosophical dogma that says only the material exists—that there is nothing immaterial. And yet scientists have discovered the immaterial. Oops.

They assert that all things must be explained by way of natural causes. Okay, good for them. But scientists tell us that the universe had a beginning—it hasn’t always been here. If nature wasn’t in existence, how do we attribute nature coming about through natural causes? Oops.

And this goes hand in hand with Darwin’s theory of evolution—taken as fact that every plant and animal owed its origin to a common ancestor and naturalistic causes. At the time of Darwin, back when Abe Lincoln was our president, no one knew the true complexity of the cell. We now know the simplest of living organisms has 159,662 base pairs of DNA and 182 protein-coding genes. What naturalistic cause put all of this together? Could this be assembled by blind, purposeless accident? Oops.

We’re to believe non-living chemicals—blind and without foresight or purpose—turned into the first living cell. And yet, some of our brightest minds have spent the past fifty years trying to create life in the laboratory. Why are these intelligent designers repeatedly failing whereas Nature was able to succeed at this by accident?¹ And Nature didn’t stop there. Do you think scientists with all of their sophisticated lab equipment and computers and superior knowledge will ever be able to create a giraffe or an orca whale?

Nature did.

And what about you and me? Do the atheists have it right? Are we the accidental result of unplanned processes, existing on account of no higher principle than Darwinian natural selection? Are we purely material entities—devoid of moral impulse or spiritual longing? Is there no purpose to life—no higher, no deeper explanation? Are we simply hairless apes?

Atheism has a stranglehold on science. And it seems most scientists are quite happy to allow things to be this way and keep God out of the picture. Much of the scientific community has accepted the philosophical dogma of scientific materialism and naturalism—that matter is the only thing in existence and that all things can be explained, and in fact, must be explained by natural causes. Since God is both immaterial and outside of nature (supernatural), any scientific discovery that is best explained by an intelligent agent is off limits.

And those holding to this worldview have also mandated that we accept as fact Darwin’s theory of evolution. It is not to be questioned—even when evidence goes against it. While evolution doesn’t rule out God, when it comes to living things and the multitude of species we see, it does make Him unnecessary.

Materialism/naturalism and Darwinian evolution have led to the establishment of arbitrary boundaries that limit scientific exploration and restrict what scientists can and can’t conclude from their research.² But not all scientists are beholden to this dogma. And today, more and more scientists and their discoveries are calling into question this worldview. That’s what we’re going to be looking at.

And all of this is bringing God back into the picture.

Recent science strongly infers the existence of God. This book is not an attempt to prove God’s existence—science can’t do that, and God doesn’t need me or anyone else to prove His existence. But we are going to see numerous examples where materialism/naturalism and Darwinian evolution can’t explain the data.

The Christian worldview can.

I should also comment on the appendix of this book—a topic that might seem out of place. The appendix looks at the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

What on earth does that have to do with science?

Recent scientific findings clearly infer God’s existence and much of what science is showing is most readily explained through the acts of a purposeful Creator. While science can’t prove God’s existence, Jesus of Nazareth can—and did. Jesus made the outlandish claim that he and God were one. Of course, anyone can make this claim.

But Jesus also predicted both his death and his resurrection. If the resurrection of Jesus truly occurred, we must take Jesus’ words seriously. And if God exists, materialism is false, we no longer must restrict ourselves to explaining everything by natural causes, and we can begin to talk about design instead of blind forces and evolution.

There is a lot of information here. Read it, study it, challenge it. Ask yourself if the world and life itself—the things we see and measure and observe—appear to be the result of blind, random, unguided, purposeless processes. Is what we see chaotic or ordered? Did the universe create itself? Can a bunch of lifeless chemicals create the first living cell? Can a rock become a whale? Are we nothing more than advanced apes?

What does the data show—recent data?³

Let’s listen to what the scientists have to say and then decide.

The world is changing. A lot has happened since 1859 when Darwin first published Origin of Species and from the time atheists set the ground rules for what science can and can’t talk about. Let’s look at where we are today.

Let’s look at today’s science and its inference for the existence of God.

---

¹ Throughout what follows, I will use a convention by Graham Farmelo. When we give nature human-like traits, such as the ability to plan or design or show foresight, I will capitalise it: Nature. We’ll look at some of Farmelo’s work later. Graham Farmelo, (2019) The Universe Speaks in Numbers: How Modern Math Reveals Nature’s Deepest Secrets, New York, Basic Books.↩︎

² Technically, there are differences between materialism and naturalism but throughout our discussion we’ll overlook the differences.↩︎

³ The bibliography lists fifty-six references. Forty-three of these were published since the year 2000. Of these, twenty were published in the last five years—with ten in just the past two years. This is recent science.↩︎

Part I

Setting the Foundation

We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow

compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world,

but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence

to material causes to create a set of concepts that produce material explanations,

no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying…

Moreover, that materialism is an absolute,

for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin

Evolutionary Biologist and Geneticist

Chapter 1

The Nature of Science

There are three fallacies that we must correct.

1) The first is the belief that science is in search for the truth. It is not.

2) The second is the assumption that science provides proofs and irrefutable facts. It does not. Science doesn’t prove anything. In addition, scientific findings are not static and are always subject to change.

3) The third is that science and religion don’t mix. They do. They absolutely go hand in hand.

Let’s address each of these three fallacies.

Scientists Are in Search for the Truth.

This is not true. They can’t be.

If scientists were searching for the truth, research and research results that go against an arbitrarily established dogma wouldn’t be walled-off and declared out of bounds. We wouldn’t see scientists being marginalised, silenced, or ridiculed when what they discover falls into an area deemed to be off limits.

The secular scientific community holds strongly to a dogma that centres on materialism (more specifically, scientific materialism) and naturalism. Materialism holds that everything in existence is material. Physical matter is the only reality. Ruling out anything that is immaterial rules out the existence of God. And the myriad of scientific evidence that points to God must be explained away, taking God out of the picture. Anything best seen as the result of an intelligent cause or representing intelligent design is to be silenced.

Similarly, naturalism holds that everything can be, and in fact, must be explained by natural causes. There is nothing outside of nature—nothing supernatural. This also rules out God. Since the God of Christianity is immaterial and not bound by nature, research results pointing towards God are deemed to be invalid.

Allied with the worldview of materialism/naturalism is a religious fervour pushing Darwinian evolution—a theory that postulates lifeforms came about through macroevolution. Darwin’s focus was on the origin of species, not the origin of life. However, Darwin’s theory goes hand in hand with naturalism because it attributes naturalistic causes for the myriad of lifeforms that exist on Earth. Scientists are shunned if they question or challenge Darwinian evolution. They are to be silenced because the alternative to evolution is creationism—life came about through a purposeful Creator. Darwinian evolution does not rule out God—but, when it comes to living things and how they got here, it does make Him unnecessary.

Scientists who set arbitrary limits on what can and can’t be discussed are not in search for the truth. And for what it’s worth, this silencing isn’t just related to such potentially religious inferences such as intelligent cause or intelligent design.

Let’s look at an open letter addressed to the scientific community which challenges the big bang theory. Published in New Scientist and signed by over thirty scientists, the letter begins:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory (emphasis added).¹

Fortunately, there is no established dogma that is preventing this active discussion on cosmic origins like there is when one approaches the subjects of intelligent design or evolution. Opinions that go against the big bang theory are allowed to be aired and published.

Note what this letter goes on to say:

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method—the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology (emphasis added).

Look at the highlighted terms from the above:

Observations are interpreted through a biased filter.

Discordant data are ignored or ridiculed.

There is a growing, dogmatic mindset.

This environment is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

A scientific viewpoint has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Support is only given to projects in support of the theory.

Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible.

Here is a group of scientists arguing that research results associated with the big bang theory show bias—and data going against the party line gets ignored or ridiculed. It is a walled-off world giving support only to projects within the big bang framework. Unbiased discussion and research are impossible.

If scientists were truly in search for the truth, what has been described would not be the case. The scientific community wouldn’t stand for this. But we see this same censorship when scientists postulate intelligent design or when evidence goes against Darwinian evolution. Data is ignored. Scientists are silenced and marginalised. Their work is criticised, discounted, and deemed to be unscientific.

Here’s another recent example showing dogmatic mindsets and where data is interpreted through a biased filter. It is also an example where support is only given to that which is in line with an established bias. During this past century, there was a hue and cry over global cooling.

Then the various models suggested that the effect of carbon emissions is one of global warming. So global warming became the clarion call for scientific research—with federal funding toward this field of research now approaching the cost of the entire Apollo project to land men on the moon.²

Then, quite recently, the data showed that the earth was in fact cooling!

So, which is it? Is there global warming or global cooling?

Since there doesn’t seem to be a consensus as to whether things are getting hotter or colder, the problem was solved by labelling this climate change—as if the climate has always held constant and Earth never experienced an ice age. Scientists fall on both sides of the argument, but any scientist or data that goes against the party line—an agenda set in some cases by non-scientists—gets suppressed. There is a pushback against a free exchange of ideas.

We saw this same bias and censorship during the recent COVID pandemic. Voices going against government policy were silenced. Research results contrary to official agendas and mandates were suppressed (censored). And it wasn’t just a handful of experts questioning what was going on. Over nine hundred thousand scientists and health practitioners from across the globe signed the Great Barrington Declaration. This lengthy document begins, As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.³

Their thoughts and proposals went against the dogmatic mindset of world governments—so their opinions received minimal news coverage or public discussion. Scientists on the correct side of government policy were given widespread visibility by the Main Street media. Joining forces, scientists, world governments, and the Main Street media silenced opposition.⁴

When scientists silence contradictory evidence or opinions which challenge dogma or agendas set by non-scientists, these scientists are not in search of the truth. If scientists beguile the world into thinking their theory must be true by definition, and that others must be ruled out from the start, then evidence becomes decidedly secondary, and no rival theories need apply.

This is the case concerning Darwin’s theory of evolution. Anything going against this has been removed from textbooks and classroom discussion. When outsiders question whether the theory of evolution is as secure as we have been led to believe, we are firmly told that such questions are out of order.⁵ Twenty years ago Darwin’s theory seemed a truism, simply because rival explanations were ruled out from the start.⁶

No. Scientists are not in search for the truth.

Let’s move to our second point.

Science Provides Proofs and Irrefutable Facts.

Science doesn’t prove anything.

Who says?

Well, for one, that’s what the National Academy of Sciences tells us. Truth in science is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.⁷ Or, as one noted scientist and Nobel prize winner has correctly stated, "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty—some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain" (emphasis added).⁸

We can infer many things from science—but science does not deal in absolute truths or provide absolute proofs. The scientific endeavour is one of suggesting various hypotheses, and then going about the arduous task of investigating that which has been hypothesised. Hypotheses are never affirmatively proven; they are only falsified:

Scientific methodology is based on generating hypothesis and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of inquiry. Hypotheses are never affirmatively proved; they are only falsified. But a hypothesis that repeatedly withstands attempts to falsify it will become accepted by the scientific community, even if conditionally, as true.⁹

Science is the practice of challenging established theories with new theories based on new evidence. Scientific knowledge isn’t static. It is one of ongoing change. The scientist/theologian Alister McGrath writes, History simply makes fools of those who argue that every aspect of the current theoretical situation is true for all time.¹⁰

It wasn’t that long ago that scientists were telling the world that light was made of waves and required a medium in which to travel—similar to sound and how sound propagates. This was the thinking during Darwin’s day and virtually all scientists held firmly to this belief.

Today we know the scientists were wrong on both counts. Light isn’t a wave as understood in decades past—nor does it need a medium to travel in—what used to be referred to as ether. Fortunately, there was no established dogma that prevented scientists from questioning the firmly held belief concerning light and its properties or from broadening their understanding of light.

In the early 1900s, a German geologist theorised that Earth’s massive continents were actually in motion—gradually moving across the earth’s surface. He was denounced as a crank and his theory wasn’t given much weight. Even fifty years after his pronouncements, he was viewed as being blind to the facts. Fortunately, there was no established dogma that prevented him from having his ideas discussed and published, and today his idea of continental drift is accepted as proven fact and is foundational in geology.

It wasn’t that long ago that the brilliant Albert Einstein opposed Niels Bohr and something new called quantum mechanics. This new theory showed the apparently contradictory nature of the atomic world, in which its invisible constituents defy the categories of classical physics, behaving simultaneously as both particle and wave. Einstein was opposed to such nonsense and proposed rational, reasonable arguments that went against this strange theory. But other scientists challenged his proposals and Einstein was shown to be wrong.¹¹ Fortunately, there was no established dogma that prevented Einstein from voicing his opposition or sharing his concepts, or dogma that prevented scientists from questioning Einstein.

As recently as 1964, a body of scientists showed there was no conclusive evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. This was based on a compilation and evaluation of three hundred and fifty separate scientific reports—reports based on scientific research.¹² Shortly afterward, this was debunked—by scientists. Fortunately, there was no established dogma that prevented the smoking does not cause cancer scientists from having their voices heard—or the smoking kills scientists from having their countering opinions discussed as well.

Today the big bang theory is in vogue as a way to explain cosmic origins. But as mentioned above, more and more scientists are openly discussing the significant problems associated with this theory. Numerous articles are being published, articles like Is the Big Bang in crisis? appearing in Astronomy.¹³

Today’s scientific fact can be overwritten by tomorrow’s scientific discoveries. McGrath recognises this changing nature of what scientists tell us. Scientific theorising is provisional. In other words, it offers what is believed to be the best account of the experimental observations currently available.¹⁴ But sometimes better explanations come along—or research sheds light that prompts new theories or modifications to the existing theories. We can’t see the future—so we have no way of knowing whether what we currently believe to be true is absolutely right and won’t be changed at a later date. Science changes—if it allows itself to change.

History is filled with examples where long-held scientific beliefs are undermined by new scientific discoveries—where scientific certainties are replaced by new theories based upon new evidence. And that’s exactly what we are seeing in many of the discoveries from today’s science.

Let’s now look at our third statement.

Science and Religion Don’t Mix.

Science and religion do mix. The suggestion that science and religion don’t mix is just one more attempt to side-line religion and get God out of the picture. But science and religion are not at odds if the scientific endeavour is freed from philosophical dogma. Science and religion should work together to illuminate our world, how it works, and what true reality is.

Above we read a quote from the scientist/theologian Alister McGrath on the provisional nature of science. McGrath has studied the relationship between science and religion throughout history and he offers this insight: Intensive scholarly research has demonstrated that the popular notion of a protracted war between church and science which continues to this day is a piece of Victorian propaganda, completely at odds with the facts. What we are seeing at present is a growing interest, on both sides of the divide, in seeing how the two disciplines can illuminate and even assist each other’s efforts.¹⁵

When scientists remove arbitrary philosophical barriers and truly search for truth, we should see no conflict between science and religion because God is truth.¹⁶ The popular author Eric Metaxas is in agreement:

What a strange reversal of fortune it seems. Far from the idea that science and faith are enemies, or that science is increasingly pushing back any need we have for God, we discover that the forward march of science is instead pushing back the argument against God. The Creator God of the Bible is a God whose existence is increasingly bolstered by science (emphasis added).¹⁷

Science and religion do mix—or at least they should mix.

Scientists should be in search of the truth and not shackled to arbitrary philosophical dogmas. They should not be forced to rule out God’s existence and should be free to interpret scientific findings without constraints. Science should be allowed to advance and progress. No existing scientific theory should be held sacrosanct—including Darwin’s theory of a century and a half ago.

---

E. Lerner, Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182 (2448) 20, May 22, 2004.↩︎

In constant dollars, the Apollo program (1962–1973) with seventeen missions (seven sending men to the moon and back) cost $170 billion (2005 dollars—this would be $200 billion in 2012 dollars). From 1993 to 2014 the total U.S. expenditures on climate change was more than $166 billion (2012 dollars). See Kenneth Haapala, U.S. Government Funding of Climate Change available at https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/ (accessed June 10, 2022).↩︎

The declaration can be found at https://gbdeclaration.org. The declaration is available in forty-four different languages and has over 930,500 signatures.↩︎

As just one example, see No Debate: Fauci and Collins Silence Scientists by the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board (January 4, 2022) available at

https://wisconsinspotlight.com/no-debate-fauci-and-collins-silence-scientists/ (accessed June 5, 20220).↩︎

Phillip E. Johnson, (2010) Darwin on Trial, Downers Grove, IVP Books, 30.↩︎

Ibid., 17.↩︎

The National Academy of Sciences provides a number of quotes similar to the above

(see https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/6024/chapter/ accessed March 2, 2021).

Also see Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts by Kenneth R. Foster and Peter W. Huber.↩︎

This comes from Richard Feynman (1918–1988), quoted in Alister E. McGrath (2015) Dawkins’ God: From ‘The Selfish Gene’ to ‘The God Delusion’, Oxford, John Wiley & Sons, 95.↩︎

Kenneth R. Foster and Peter W. Huber (1998) Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts, Cambridge, MIT Press, 38.↩︎

McGrath (2015) Dawkins’ God: From ‘The Selfish Gene’ to ‘The God Delusion’, Oxford, John Wiley & Sons, 79.↩︎

See Paul Davies and John Gribben (1992) The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality, New York, Simon & Schuster, 196–231 for a discussion concerning Einstein’s objections to the quantum theory and the experiment showing Einstein to be incorrect.↩︎

Matti Leisola and Jonathan Witt (2018) Heretic: Once Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design, Seattle, Discovery Institute, 13.↩︎

Dan Hooper, "Is the Big Bang in crises? Stubborn problems with dark matter, dark energy, and