For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the LORD, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel. (Ezra 7:10.)

Relevant

A Joomla! Template for the Rest of Us

 

Search

Questions?

Please enter your questions, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. As an anti-spam measure, we ask that you re-type the code you see in the box below, prior to clicking "Send Message"






Recommendations

Only Jesus (great song by Big Daddy)

What Did Jesus Say? (2012) - 7 topics 

None above affiliated with me

JesusWordsOnS-cropsmall
JesusWordsSalv-crop2
DidCalvinMurderServetusM

Created by Ingenious Design

by Andrew S. Balian

Science Is Gradually Vindicating Genesis

faith

God tells us in Genesis One that in "the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." (Gen. 1:1.) God tells us He created successively plants, birds, mammals and then Man. From a Christian perspective, science every day is unintentionally and by force of evidence adding proof upon proof of these propositions.

From our perspective as Christians earnest for evangelism, all we care about is to show the compatibility of the Bible with science. Modern science, stripped of any agenda to prove God-did-it, is the most reliable to convince anyone who is a skeptic that God-did-it because then modern science was not deliberately trying to prove that God-did-it when quite unintentionally they prove God-did-it. In other words, modern science which has been committed to finding naturalistic explanations (whether rightly or wrongly as an agenda) can therefore be relied upon by honest skeptics when it reluctantly discovers evidence of divine intervention.

Big Bang: Major Vindication of the Bible

This clearly has already happened outside the life-sciences with the Big Bang. Forty years ago, Hoyle mockingly called this theory while in its infancy the 'Big Bang' because he said that any notion of a beginning of time and matter was one step removed from proving the uncaused beginner -- GOD -- as a necessary 'cause-and-effect' to explain tne Universe's origin. Thus, when the current consensus arose, best expressed by Hawking, that indeed time and matter came into existence suddenly in the Big Bang, the Bible scored a huge victory. This event as Hawking explains it exactly is compatible with the words of Genesis 1:1. For Christians and Jews, this was a major cause for celebration.

DNA: Its Amazing Characteristics Refute Any Unintelligent Origin

The next important victory on the horizon is that life sciences while they are predominantly on an agenda to confirm evolutionism by natural means (praise God for they objectively and unwittingly prove often the opposite!) are constantly confronted and thwarted by the characteritics of DNA. God is using their skepticism to improve the believability of their discoveries!

For example, Crick, the discoverer of DNA, even concluded that the idea DNA could evolve in the geological environment of Earth at any time is an impossible idea. It is physically impossible! Only a miracle on Earth could create it. Those are his words. There are many scientific reasons for this, such as oxgen's presence in the atmosphere or water which in any amount is lethal to DNA unless a highly complex and lengthy-coded sequence directed formation of a protein in the cell to counter oxgen's lethal effect and this protein was present in the very first DNA. Crick confesses the extreme implausiblity of any such idea. Hence, at no point and in no place on earth could DNA ever evolve! Crick says so! Thus, Crick said the only naturalistic explanation is that DNA arose outside of earth, perhaps on another planet, and then a meteorite dropped it off.

I have a Christian response to this: His unknown god of creation from a meterorite is really a weak effort not to see the God of the Bible!

Thus, we should realize that it is the best possible thing that science is predominantly controlled by the atheist or agnostic at this time. This is because as this evidence matures, and the realization sets in that the life sciences have proven the necessity of an original designer of DNA, and all its subsequent major transitional changes (by miracles of God's hand), then no one can claim this evidence was set forth by someone with an agenda to prove intelligent design.

And thus in the very same way cosmologists were forced to the Big Bang -- issuing statements entirely compatible if not identical to the statements in the Bible -- life science experts will eventually be forced to say very similar things due to discoveries on DNA.

Let's Take Dawkins' Offer

Richard Dawkins is the world's foremost defender of orthodox Darwinian evolution.

Dawkins recently said in a radio interview on NPR in 2007 and again in a video interview captured in Ben Stein's Expelled (2008) that it is a proper scientific endeavor to detect whether life originated on earth by a designer as long as we posit/assume this designer (or designers) evolved elsewhere. With that objective and that assumption, the investigation of design-features in life on earth, etc., would be a purely scientific venture. It would also fit within Darwinian theory. That theory assumes and proves, Dawkins claims, the ability to create consciousness from pure matter by means of trial and error. Thus, as long as all assumptions are materialistic, Dawkins says science can investigate intelligent design as the root cause for life on earth.

I accept Dr. Dawkins' honesty and his intention behind what some mockingly call the Alien Design Theory. As long as I vigorously assume I am investigating an alien non-terrestrial culture, and I do not ascribe to it supernatural powers to solve knotty problems of causation, I am engaging in a legitimate scientific endeavor. But even so, this eventually will lead us to no conclusion possible other than that life was ingeniously designed, and so was the universe.

Hence, I will reverse engineeer the steps involved in various puzzles to show how an ingenious design is absolutely necessary for various phenomena in Nature. I will prove they were established by an ingenious design harnessing the known laws of physics. Such a pursuit is what Dawkins concedes is legitimate, and this is what every scientist should accept as a legitimate scientific inquiry.

As a result, my inquiry is bounded on two sides so that it cannot be used to establish a religious belief. Creation is not pointing to miracles, but rather that the end-product required ingenious design of the starting conditions or operations of creation. Such scientific inquiry is not a claim we know about the origin of the creator (or creators, if an atheist insists we speak thusly), but of his presence and role, there can be no doubt. Therefore, I envision one day this theory of Ingenious Design could be legally taught in a classroom because it only proves the necessity of design by an ingenious source using powers to control the natural world that we only dream of harnessing.

The reason Ingenious Design can be taught is that there is no religious content in Ingenious Design theory. The theory only proves an intelligence exists elsewhere, and created various items of our universe, including the universe itself. No one can say this scientific inquiry will prove necessarily the existence of God as classicly defined. It proves an intelligent origin -- nothing more and nothing less.

That is not to say that a person of faith will be discouraged by such evidence. They may claim such a designer or designers revealed by this investigation fit the characteristics of God. That the creator has supernatural powers, and thus we can call Him God. But those issues can only be addressed in a Metaphysics classroom. Science cannot study by definition the supernatural, even if it were intelligent. That's why such discussion will not be found within the Ingenious Design paradigm of scientific inquiry.

I am not merely being coy and quiet about who I think is the likely designer, as the current Intelligent Design movement was found in the Dover case to represent (whether rightly or wrongly).

Instead, I am agreeing to investigate a non-terrestrial intelligence as Dawkins agrees is a purely scientific endeavor. I am personally not a materialist, but a theist. Yet, my theism is irrelevant for this investigation. Instead, I will offer theories that are purely scientific of how an intelligence must have created mechanisms or a means to manipulate matter to form, for example, the Sloan Great Wall.

The Example of the Sloan Great Wall

The Sloan Great Wall is a good illustration of what Ingenious Design represents. This structure was discovered in 1985 by Geller and Huchra while working as astrophysicists for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center of Astrophysics.

The Sloan Great Wall is a large scale space structure 1 billion light years over our North Pole. It is made of 11,000 galaxies who individually serve as nodes in a honeycomb structure. Its overall exterior form is patterned, even in 3-D, to conform to the image of a little man with a head, two arms, a torso and two legs (known as the Homonculus).

In the chapter on the Great Wall, I will explain the origin of this structure wholly by showing that some intelligence employing the laws of physics in ingenious ways could levitate matter by electromagnetism and stabilize it to conform precisely to the Homonculus -- with every one of thousands of cells being comprised of hexagon-shaped / a honey-comb of spiral galaxies. By the same mechanism, an intelligent designer could maintain the interior structure using 11,000 galaxies where each galaxy one-by-one is fitted as nodes within thousands of hexagons. This is a feat that gravity alone could never do, but an ingenious mechanism can do, and is the only plausible and necessary explanation in Science for the Sloan Great Wall.

Thus, in the analysis of the Sloan Great Wall, I am not resorting to explaining the unknown by miracles. My explanation does not depend on the supernatural. Yet, at the same time, while I discuss this in terms of a non-terrestrial creator at least 1 billion light years from us, I am not committed that such powers are not, by our limited knowledge, a superior control over the physical processes that we are familiar with. If I went into a Metaphysics discussion of the same evidence, I will declare Eureka -- only God in the classic definition explains this superior knowledge and physical manipulation of 11,000 galaxies to shape them in hexagon's with each galaxy a node in the hexagon, and then overall shaped like the outline in 3-D of a Man, the Homonculus. In a Metaphysics course, I can propose non-scientific but no less truth-seeking theorems to analyze whether this intelligence is, in fact, God. But in science as I investigate the Sloan Great Wall, I find ingeniousness on a grand scale that unquestionably was intelligent. What caused it -- whether miracles or a superiour power that we are unfamiliar with but can be intelligently manipulated is beyond what science so far can detect. Only the ingeniousness of doing so is at this point capable of scientific investigation.

Ingenious Design by a Non-Terrestrial Intelligence

This book/webpage also seeks to establish the correct theorem to prove intelligent design. The correct theorem, I believe, is to prove simply an ingenious level of design. This is exhibited in a multitude of specific engineering marvels in our universe. If we are willing to challenge ourselves, and truly think hard, we can perceive GENIUS of an extraordinary magnitude in natural mechanisms that were not conceivably produced by trial and error or wholly unintelligent processes. This is true of DNA, fractals, protein folding, irridescence in butterfly wings, human eyesight, photosynthesis, and the Sloan Great Wall, etc., to just mention a few such phenemona. Only by employing all our greatest scientific minds to explain the engineering principles latent in biological and natural structures can we pay proper respect to the extra-terrestrial designer that Dawkins conceded may be the proper scientific explanation for a natural phenemonon.

Hence, in this book/webpage, science is the limits of inquiry. Thus, the immediate first-step is not to prove creation by a divine being. That is the next step in a study of what these conclusions mean in metaphysics and/or natural history. Religious discussion is beyond the scope of our initial scientific inquiry. Until we examine the science, and prove ingenious design, the issue of WHO is the designer is premature. By keeping these classroom walls separating the two topics, we can finally reintroduce into modern science COMMON SENSE -- some things in nature are clearly and indubitably designed, e.g., DNA.

This is a book which is a work in progress. For the latest version, click here

Latest edit: June 23, 2008  


Latest News On Whether Science Can Prove Existence of God

Should students be taught that a mathematical genius and friend / colleague of Einstein  - Kurt Godel -- devised a theorem, which if proven true, would prove the existence of God? This was a formula put forth in 1941, and disclosed in the 1970s when he thought he might die. (See link.)

Well, they may have to. In 2013, using Kurt Godel's calculations, scientists contend a computer proved Godel's theorem was true. This was the headline The Express, from the UK on 1/23/2017. See link.  The article explains: "Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.

Or as Dr Gödel put it through his equations: “Ax. 1. {P(φ)∧?∀x[φ(x)→ψ(x)]} →P(ψ)Ax. 2.P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)Th. 1.P(φ)→◊∃x[φ(x)]Df. 1.G(x)?∀φ[P(φ)→φ(x)]Ax. 3.P(G)Th. 2.◊∃xG(x)Df. 2.φ ess x?φ(x)∧∀ψ{ψ(x)→?∀y[φ(y)→ψ(y)]}Ax. 4.P(φ)→?P(φ)Th. 3.G(x)→G ess xDf. 3.E(x)?∀φ[φ ess x→?∃yφ(y)]Ax. 5.P(E)Th. 4.?∃xG(x)”.

You get it, right?  

But two computer scientists have used computers to run such complicated which they say confirms that the equation does indeed add up.

The point of the researchers’ argument was that they were not directly trying to prove the existence of God, but rather to showcase the power of computers. 

Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University, who ran the calculations along with Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, told Spiegel Online: "It's totally amazing that from this argument led by Gödel, all this stuff can be proven automatically in a few seconds or even less on a standard notebook.

“I didn’t know it would create such a huge public interest but [Gödel’s ontological proof] was definitely a better example than something inaccessible in mathematics or artificial intelligence… 

“It’s a very small, crisp thing, because we are just dealing with six axioms in a little theorem.

“There might be other things that use similar logic.”  

On 8/17/2013, the Free University of Berlin posted this explanation of apparently earlier results by the same researcher, cautioning that the proof is only as valid as the theorems used:

The consistency of the basic assumptions made by Gödel was confirmed by the computer. Furthermore, the scientists were able to demonstrate that the nontrivial proof was, for the most part, able to be generated automatically by the computer. They had not expected that to be the case. This means that in addition to using such systems to prove theorems in philosophy and mathematics, in the future they could be used in dialogue systems so that computers can be used to understand human reasoning patterns and even augment them.

The logic formalism used by Gödel – a so-called higher-order modal logic that uses terms like "necessary" and "possible" – was previously thought to be too complex and difficult to represent and automate on the computer. Available theorem provers are mainly based on much simpler formalisms. To circumvent this problem, the researchers used a methodology that allowed them to automate Gödel's higher-order modal logic using existing theorem provers. This trick is based in turn on the theoretical work of Benzmüller and Paulson from the University of Cambridge. For the classical higher-order logic, several theorem provers were developed in the last two decades. They were now successfully used in the work by Benzmüller and Woltzenlogel Paleo, including a theorem prover developed by Benzmüller.

Kurt Gödel's mathematical proof of God was published after his death. It belongs to the class of so-called ontological proofs, which have a long tradition in philosophy. As constructions of pure thought, they were previously and are still, hotly debated in the scientific world. In an ontological proof of God, the existence of God is deduced from a few abstract axioms and definitions through a logical progression. Conversely, one can say that God's existence is reduced to the validity of these axioms and definitions.

A number of well-known philosophers including St. Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz, and Kant, have dealt intensively with ontological proofs of God. Two issues are relevant for this type of proof: (A) Are the chosen assumptions valid and useful? (B) Is the logical chain of reasoning actually correct? Dealing with issue (A) is up to the fields of philosophy and theology, and ontological proofs of God have in the past often, and justifiably so, been criticized on this point. Dealing with issue (B) is a matter of mathematical and philosophical logic. The logic formalism used in Gödel's proof is not trivial. Up to now analysis of the logical aspects was done exclusively with paper and pencil, which is both tedious and prone to error.

 Spiegel online draws a more friendly neutral point: 

Ultimately, the formalization of Gödel's ontological proof is unlikely to win over many atheists, nor is it likely to comfort true believers, who might argue the idea of a higher power is one that defies logic by definition. For mathematicians looking for ways to break new ground, however, the news could represent an answer to their prayers.


What is Godel famous for? His two theorems:

"The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F. According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent (assuming it is indeed consistent)." (Standford Enc. of Philosophy.)

This BBC YouTube explains how we accept obvious axioms to do mathematics.

For a discussion of Godel's Theorems, and the origin of the universe, see this April 2010 You Tube. At 3:25, the video explains Godel proved in 1931 that every system that you look at and try to explain, e.g., Euclidian rules of geometry, can always and only be explained by making assumptions outside of it of something else being true. You can never prove the assumptions are true purely by mathematics, yet they are necessarily true to explain the phenomena / system you are trying to explain. This means "there are more things that are true that you cannot prove, and that thus any system of reasoning, belief, requires faith."  The video commentator says "this is the most important thing anyone has ever come up with in the last 2000 years." At 7:25, the discussion turns on the origin of the universe. Even if you postulate a multi-verse caused our universe, you are always forced to assume as true something brought the multi-verse into existence. This allows an inference of the nature of what is outside the universe by knowing the properties of the universe. Those properties are: matter, energy, space and time. Thus, the universe is contingent on there being something that exists that has no matter, energy, space or time. Then part 2 continues at this link. He says you know what is outside our universe is boundless / infinite because our universe is defined as having a boundary. He concludes that when you apply Godel's theorem, you end up needing something that sounds like characteristics of God. The this appears to be part 3. He explains that information is immaterial rules imposed on material things to be communicated, conveyed, etc. DNA is an example. At some point, we have to have an immaterial conscious being set in motion. Living things have information that was created from outside the circle of the universe. Where do conscious beings come from? From other conscious beings. So ultimately concsciousness is from outside the universe. 


 

Links

Feisty Amazon Comments on Gitt's work In the Beginning was Information -- see link. Gitt's thesis is that information implies a mental construct, and thus is not the product of matter accidentally communicating to one other piece of matter.