Category Archives: Science

Arrogant science

The ability to follow evidence where ever it leads requires humble intelligence. One must not be so arrogant as to think that they know the conclusion before they find the evidence. Closed-minded scientists cannot see that which they do not want to see. They prejudice their interpretations with preclusions and suffer from interpretive myopia. They willingly blind themselves. They disqualify themselves from being capable of offering interpretive objectivity. Their conclusions are not to be trusted.

Atheistic science forces atheistic conclusions regardless of the evidence. In contrast, a creation scientist can offer interpretations that conform to laws and forces predicted by design and acknowledge a supernatural origin of those governing forces.

Steven Weinberg is a good example of how some intelligent men fail the test of objectivity and humility. Arrogant science is bad science.

American physicist Steven Weinberg was awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics. In 1999, he spoke to the Conference on Cosmic Design, hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion… I learned that the aim of this conference is to have a constructive dialogue between science and religion. I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.”

Share Button

Ham’s debate success mixed with disappointment

Disappointed in the Ham and Nye debate? The main reason expressed for the disappointment is because the Bible guy was giving the science guy Bible answers. Many felt that scientific answers should have been given to the questions posed by Nye. And yes, that would have been great. Ham could have shown the audience that the creation model is not only Biblical but solidly scientific in all of its explanations.

But Ham is all about Bible science. And there is nothing wrong with that. Ham did present scientists who are also believers in the Biblical creation model. He also gave scientific answers to some of Nye’s questions. Though many in the audience were disappointed, Ham won the debate with a slam dunk because he successfully answered the debate question, which was, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” The video interviews shown by Ham of Bible believing scientists answered the question. Yes, creation is a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era.

Nye lost the debate. He tried to warn the audience that teaching creation in schools jeopardized Continue Reading

Share Button

Ken Ham wins debate over Bill Nye

Bill Nye the science guy debated Ken Ham the Bible guy about whether the Biblical creation position is a viable science model in today’s world of modern science. Nye immediately went on the attack to reword the question to make the debate about Ken Ham’s Bible creation model.

Ham did a great job in his opening remarks to address anticipated criticisms such as distinguishing between historical science and observational science, are there scientists who believe in Biblical creation, can and have creationists contributed to science and technology, and can the Biblical creation model make scientific predictions. Most importantly, Ham presented testimonies of scientists who believe in Biblical creation. In other words, yes, it is possible to believe in Biblical creation and be a scientist in today’s modern world. Ham achieved his goal and successfully answered the debate question.

Nye’s opening remarks were failed attempts to spin the debate as science versus Ken Ham’s model, to challenge Ham’s definitions of historical and observational science, and to warn the audience that creation science threatens Continue Reading

Share Button

Hypocrisy in science

Former managing editor  for the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Richard Sternberg describes his personal experience of blatant suppression of research and information that involved censorship but intimidation. Sternberg writes in his blog, “In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there. These actions were taken by federal government employees acting in concert with an outside advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education. Efforts were also made to get me fired from my job as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information.”

Applying Nazi tactics and hypocrisy, naturalists censor articles such as Dr. Meyer’s and then accuse creationists of not publishing in peer review journals. The lack of integrity and honesty exposed by this treachery and displayed in the community of scientists is frightening. True scientists should be concerned about the strangle hold of a monopolizing ideology in education. In this case, naturalism. But then, that would be contrary to the humanist’s personal and political agenda. They are hypocrites.

Share Button

Brain Scan Shows Who You’re Thinking About

Imaging technologies for human brain scans can now identify what people are imagining, tell whom a person is thinking of, what number people have just seen, what memory a person is recalling, and reconstruct videos of what a person has watched.

The marvelous design of the brain is being studied and amazing discoveries are being made. As technology advances, so too does our knowledge of God’s creation.

Ps 139:14, I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.


Original article: Charles Choi, Mar. 13, 2013, 4:19 PM, Your Brain Scans Show Who You’re Thinking About, Txchnologist,

Share Button

The God particle

In an interview with All Things Considered, in 1993, Dick Teresi told Melissa Block that the term ‘God particle’ was a joke title for his book: The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?1 However, the publisher thought it was a marketable phrase and retained it in the book’s title.

The only thing divine about the Higgs boson is that it was designed by God with a specific value of force. In this respect, there are many God particles in creation. The specific value of force in the boson is in itself miraculous because a force value greater or less than it has by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power would prevent life-sustaining stars from forming.2 Why does the boson possess the one value of that allows life to exist on earth when it has innumerable possible values it could have had occurring by chance? The boson, like so many other forces and values, were designed to possess its force value to make it possible for life to exist. This is fine tuning evidence for an Intelligent Designer.

The excitement over finding the Higgs Boson is due to its elusiveness. Of the four fundamental forces in creation (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational), the boson of gravity is the last and most challenging force to be identified.

The name Higgs boson was coined by British physicist Peter Higgs. He and others first theorized, almost 50 years ago, the existence of such a particle as predicted by the Standard Model of Physics (SMP).3 Up until now, the SMP has been missing a major component to be a complete model.

Discovery of the Higgs boson completes the model’s need for four fundamental laws and will lead to new and exciting insights into God’s design of creation.


1Eyder Peralta, March 15, 2013, 5:04pm, The Man Who Coined ‘The God Particle’ Explains: It Was A Joke!, npr,

2Robin Collins, September 1, 1998, Reprinted from Reason for the Hope Within, Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture,, Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)

3Jon Hembrey, Mar 15, 2013 5:18 AM ET, Why the Higgs boson ‘God particle’ matters, CBC News


Share Button