Occasionally, scientists actually call their own theories into question. This happened recently with experiments performed by CERN scientists using the CERN collider.

They were doing experiments looking for asymmetry in the universe. Instead of finding asymmetry, they found that there was complete symmetry between matter and antimatter in their experiments. Their conclusion was that, under those circumstances, the universe should not even exist! What’s left unsaid in all of this is why they were looking for asymmetry in the first place and exactly what did they mean that the universe should not exist? Here’s the backstory.

There are only two kinds of scientists. Stop me if you have heard me say this before. Two kinds of scientists – those that believe that God exists and those that don’t. Those scientists that do not believe in a creator god would go looking for asymmetry in the universe; those that do believe in God, would go looking for symmetry. Again, the CERN scientists went looking for asymmetry. Why? Obviously, because they do not believe in a creator god.

The reasoning for why the universe shouldn’t exist goes something like this. A universe formed by Nature (i.e. The Big Bang) would produce something that is asymmetrical. Otherwise, the matter and antimatter would cancel each other out and the universe would not exist.

However, if the universe is symmetrical as the CERN scientists found, why does the universe exist at all? How is that possible? The answer is that there would have to be some unseen force that holds it all together. Here are a few explanations of that “force” from some well-known scientists:

  • French physicist Bernard d’Espagnat claimed that the true reality of creation was outside of space and time.
  • Theoretical physicist James Gates says that his research demonstrates that the equations which describe the fundamental nature of the universe contain embedded computer codes. In other words, we exist in a virtual reality matrix.
  • The book The Holographic Universe which is based on the work of physicist David Bohm, a protege of Albert Einstein, and quantum physicist Karl Pribram theorizes that our reality is based on frequencies that have been projected into our universe from a realm that is beyond both space and time.

So, the CERN scientists went looking for asymmetry and instead they found what, Mister Goodbar? Well, some will surely argue that they found evidence that God exists. Why don’t the CERN scientists just state the obvious, then? Well, because they don’t believe in God as I mentioned before. Their scientific theories are based on an ideology; namely, that God does not exist. So, the result of their experiment that the universe is symmetrical will be discarded in due course as just another unexplained anomaly because as evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin admitted …”we can’t allow a Divine Foot in the door.”



“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”

   – Arno Penzias, physicist and Nobel laureate










So, my last post Between Science and Faith brought a chorus of boos from both sides of the aisle. Too bad, because in my opinion you deserve it…and each other. So, let’s review the bidding.

At least in this country, the battle between science and faith boils down to a debate between atheism and Christianity. I refer to it as “Dueling Delusions.” The main sticking point has to do with which side is deemed to be more tied to a “preconceived ideology”. In my opinion, that’s a toss-up since Christianity believes in talking snakes while at least some atheists, who rely on science to describe all things big and small, apparently believe that science can observe beyond space and time and that scientific formulae written on a chalkboard constitute proof.

The underlying problem for Christianity is that it is based on a reinterpretation of scriptures written by Jewish holy men whereby Christianity claims that the writers of the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) didn’t understand what they were writing.  Opposed to that, we have atheism which is an ideology centered around materialism, evolution and naturalism, and which uses cherry-picked scientific theory (not fact) to support its ideology. I say “cherry-picked” because as Nobel laureate George Wald admitted, “Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.“

The larger question in this debate is why is there a debate at all and why is it only between  atheism and Christianity. Why aren’t the other world religions (of which there are several thousand) included in this discussion? The reason as Michael Ruse, an evolutionist himself, said, “Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality….” So, the debate is not necessarily about who is right but rather it’s about whether atheism can replace Christianity (as the prevailing religion).

As to where I stand in this debate, I simply contend that both sides are based on preconceived ideology. This has resulted in a debate that has gone absolutely no where. Both sides believe in their own dogma, a dogma which is impervious to falsification. As Mark Twain once commented, “It ain’t what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”



This debate, however, is merely a microcosm of the contentious, divisive social arguments one can witness in society today.  In the end, it is not so much an intellectual argument as it is really about who gets to rule and the social/political/economic ideas that each group endorses. It’s “identity politics” at its finest. It’s ultimately about whether the rights of man come from God or the state. That’s why I say that America is at war with itself: verbally, spiritually and politically. You might want to think of it as a Second Civil War. Hang on. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.





This is kind of a tired, old discussion, however, people keep posting about it so I guess I have to put in my own two cents (once again).  That is, which is better…science or faith.

Although, both have their place, I would say neither.  While I don’t accept the biblical explanation of creation, I don’t accept the atheists’ version of it either.  That was the essence of my prior post Dueling Delusions.

So, here’s some people, obviously atheists, who commented on a recent post on this subject:

Quote #1:

“Neither our observable universe, nor possibly a larger cosmos, require some intelligence or higher power for their ‘creation.’ Such rationalizations simply reflect ignorance or are designed to support some preconceived notion in lieu of factual evidence.”

My comment:

That’s true, but incomplete. In fact, it’s totally one-sided. As physicist David Bohm succinctly put it, “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”  Bohm was talking about everyone but in this case I would especially apply his quote to the person who made the above comment where they said that “…such rationalizations simply…are designed to support some preconceived notion.” For example, this person believes that the unobservable cosmos does not require a higher power for its creation. Obviously, that’s a preconceived idea since there is no scientific evidence to support it.

Geneticist Richard Lewontin, an atheist himself, explained just how the preconceived thought process works with respect to science vs. faith: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori 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 an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”


Quote #2:

“Evolution is fact as the evidence tells us.”

Perhaps, this person should read up on evolutionist Steven Jay Gould who said:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history; yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”

Or maybe scientist and Nobel laureate George Wald who said:

When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.

Or maybe agnostic scientist Michael Denton who said:

“Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.”

Or maybe Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, who said:

“For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”

Or maybe evolutionist Michael Ruse, who said:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”



… “I see no reason for a deity or god. Everything has a scientific explanation or a set of working hypothesis good enough for me.”

My comment:

As to this person’s opinion that…”everything has a scientific explanation”, I would simply say that science doesn’t hold the key to creation.  Some scientists even freely admit it. For example:

Life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence.” – Astrophysicist Martin Rees

“If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match”  – Dr. Michael Turner, cosmologist at the University of Chicago

“The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe.”  – Albert Einstein

“What a life in science really teaches you is the vastness of our ignorance.” – David Eagleman

“Science has proof without certainty” – Ashley Montagu

“We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.”  – Robert Lanza

“A singularity is when we don’t know what to do. What’s so embarrassing about singularities is that we can’t predict what’s going to come out of it.”  – Prof. Andrew Strominger, Harvard University


So, the science that the above people are no doubt referring to as the same one that Paul Feyerabend commented on when he said, “Thus science is much closer to myth than scientific philosophy is prepared to admit… it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and its limits.”  The ideology in question is materialism as Richard Lewontin stated (see above).  It’s no accident that atheism, evolution and materialism go hand-in-hand.  That’s because, they are all part of the same ideology.

So, yes, it’s a tired debate between two camps (atheists and deists) who both have a preconceived notion that they are right. As Stuart Chase said, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”  Perhaps, however, the debate continues on (and on) because both sides are, in reality, trying to convince themselves that they are right.


“A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses. It is an idea that possesses the mind.”  – Robert Oxton Bolt

So, Christians believe that they are living in sin. Naturally, since, it’s part of Christian theology, which is supposedly based on the story of Adam and Eve. Too bad that the Bible is in disagreement.

According to the Bible, no less than Jesus and God made statements that they disagreed with the concept of Original Sin (see John 9:2-3 and Genesis 8:21, respectively). Of course, the whole issue is probably moot anyway because Judaism doesn’t believe in Original Sin and they wrote the Old Testament – it’s their bible. Enough said.

Heaven and hell is another misconstrued part of Christian theology. It’s somewhat true, although woefully incomplete. At the risk of oversimplifying, heaven is our natural state of existence (where we originally came from if you will) and hell…well hell is right here on Earth. The story of the Fall is loosely based on how man stepped down from a higher plane of existence into this material world.

Keep in mind, the “natural state” of existence is non-physical. That is, life is energy and energy is life and, of course, energy is non-physical. As Einstein put it, energy can neither be created or destroyed. However, it can change form. Thus, if you reduce the vibration rate of energy it will condense, eventually into matter. That’s how man went from Heaven to Hell.

So, if there was no Original Sin and we are already in Hell, why did Jesus come? The better question, however, is this, “If Jesus didn’t preach the concept of Original Sin, why does the Church believe in it?” The answer to that question is that it has to do with the basis of all religions. I call it the selling of salvation. In effect, religion is a barter. You put money into the church coffers and in return you are given the so-called keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. The bottom line is essentially this: If there is no Original Sin, there is no need for salvation and, therefore, no need for a messiah.

All religions are based on a common source of abstract beliefs in the Divine.  Jesus, like other prophets before and after him, taught these “truths” under a veil of allegory and symbolism (and parables in Jesus’ case). The disciples believed that Jesus was the messiah who was prophesied by Old Testament prophets who were expecting a real flesh-and-blood messiah (like King David) who would deliver them from their enemies and reestablish the Kingdom of Israel. Of course, it never happened.

Some two thousand years later, we’re still waiting for the Old Testament prophecies to come true. According to prophecy, all we need is a messiah named Immanuel; for the entire world to accept the Jewish god; and for all the Jews to return to their homeland. That last one is a bit problematic as the Jewish homeland, according to the Bible, is Judea and Samaria while the present day state of Israel for the most part does not encompass those territories.

If you believe in the Old Testament prophecies, it looks increasingly unlikely that a messiah will ever return. If one could ask twentieth century Christian theologian Albert Schweitzer, he’d no doubt say that Jesus should have returned in the lifetime of the disciples (if he was the messiah). At least, that was what he said in his book The Quest for the Historical Jesus. 

…and that was not just his opinion, but rather what the Bible, itself, said.



“One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history – it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn church history.” – Christian theologian Brian McLaren