SCIENCE and DESIGN – SYNOPSIS             

Random Accident vs  Intelligent Design       

Precision– Life Balanced  On A Razor’s Edge

Discovery Magazine:  “The universe is UNLIKELY.  VERY unlikely.  Deeply, SHOCKINGLY unlikely.”  

Martin Rees: “The universe’s structure becomes “UNLIKELY to an ABSURD degree”

Science shows the MIND BOGGLING CONVERGENCES of SCORES of extraordinary “coincidences”  that make life possible on earth.

Does RANDOM mutation and the UNCHANGING“laws” of “nature” adequately  EXPLAIN the origins of the cosmos, life  and humanity ?


“Cosmology” is the study of the origins and nature of the universe.

There are more than thirty separate physical or cosmological parameters that require PRECISE calibration in order to produce a life sustaining universe.

Alister McGrath – “Is it a PURE COINCIDENCE that the laws of nature are such that lifeis possible?” McGrath describes “the absolutely INCREDIBLE FINE-TUNING of the Cosmos”.

The basic structure of the universe is BALANCED on a RAZOR’s EDGE for life to exist. – Robin Collins

HOW exactly did the universe begin ???   What is the “SOURCE”  of the universe  ???


What does the EVIDENCE of science show us about our origins ?

Natural science can be used to show that IF the physical laws and constants were JUST a LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT from what they are then WE WOULD NOT BE HERE to NOTICE.

The question is WHY does this universe has the PHYSICAL LAWS it HAS?




The ancients generally  considered the universe a timeless,  static entity  an eternal, changing universe.  Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in 1915 suggested the cosmoswas in a continual state of either expansion or contraction. 

In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble provided empirical evidence to show a universe expanding, light and galaxies moving away from earth.  This implies a “BEGINNING” to the known universe. Cosmic microwave background  radiation suggests cosmic expansion from a SUDDEN BEGINNING.

The BIG BANG  was the event which led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe’s early development.


 1 – whatever has a BEGINNING has a CAUSE

 2 – universe BEGAN to exist.

 3 – universe has a CAUSE to it’s existence


The COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT  is the density of MATTER and EMPTY SPACE, the expansion speed of space in the universe.  If too quick material objects can not form stars, galaxies and/or planets.

The cosmological constant is part of Einstein’s equation for General Relativity.

The Cosmological Constant is quite small. If large and positive, it would be a repulsive force that would PREVENT matter from CLUMPING together in the early universe, reverse the expansionof the universe and cause it to RE-COLLAPSE.

The FINE-TUNING  has conservatively been estimated to be at least ONE PART in a HUNDRED MILLION BILLION BILLION BILLION BILLION BILLION

Collins – “That would be a ten followed by fifty three zeroes – that’s INconceivably precise

GRAVITY pulls all matter togetherWith no gravitational force pulling matter together, there would be no atomsand no chemistry.Gravity has an INCOMPREHENSIVELY NARROW RANGE for life to exist. Gravity – a very weakforce on the level of atomsalso attractslarge objects – planets, stars, and galaxies.

Gravity happens to be situated in the EXACT RIGHT FRACTION to make our universe capable of sustaining life.While gravity attracts large objects – planets, stars, galaxies –  gravity also needs to work  on atoms.  With no gravitational force pulling matter together, there would be no atomsor chemistry.

ELECTROMAGNETISM is the key attracting force between protons and electrons allows molecules to form.  Without electromagnetic force no bondingbetween chemicalsand no light.

STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE binds atoms together, “glues” protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom.  If changed the only element left in the universe would be hydrogen chemical life not possible.

Increase the mass of a neutron by about one part in seven hundred  and NUCLEAR FUSION in stars would stop.  There would be noenergy force for life

CARBON and OXYGEN are produced in a certain RATIO INSIDE STARSIf one tinkers with the resonance states of  carbon, you won’t get the materials you need for building life.

The  “ORIGINAL PHASE-SPACE VOLUME” requires fine-tuning to an accuracy of  ONEpart in TEN BILLION MULTIPLIED by itself  123 TIMES.

This shows the Martin Rees: ”For the universe to exist required HYDROGEN be CONVERTED to HELIUM in a  precise but comparatively stately manner in a way that converts seven thousandths  (0.0007) of its mass to energy.

Lower that value from 0.007 to 0.006 %, and no transformation could not take place; the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else.

Raise it 0.008 % and bonding would be so wildly prolific that the hydrogen would be exhausted.


Patrick Glynn:  “All the SEEMINGLY ARBITRARY and unrelated constants in physics have ONE STRANGE THING in common – these are PRECISELY the values you need to have a universe capable of producing life”.   Humans require26 essential elements;  a bacterium 16.


We are told the fact that LIFE flourishes on Earth is NOT EXCEPTIONAL.

The earth is an AVERAGE ROCK spinning around an UNREMARKABLE star in a run of the mill galaxy.  Ilife can emerge from nonlife so quickly and efficiently on a planet as undistinguished as ours, then why not throughout the universe’s hundreds of millions of galaxies?

Science shows the CONVERGENCE of scores of extraordinary “COINCIDENCES” that make life  possible on earth. Not only intelligent life, but eventhe simplestof animal life, is EXCEEDINGLY RARE in our galaxy and in the universe.

Earth’s location, size, composition, structure, atmosphere, temperature, internal dynamics essential to life and many INTRICATE SYSTEMS – e.g. carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous, sulfur, calcium and sodium –  that are essential to life testify to the degree to which earth is  EXQUISITIELY and PRECARIOUSLY BALANCED


Does “scientific” evidence  support “creation” by UNDIRECTED, SPONTANEOUS and CHANCE or ACCIDENTAL methods?

With the SLIGHTEST TWEEKING of the NUMBERS the universe as we know would not be here.

The more we understand our CAREFULLY CRAFTER HABITAT, the impression of DESIGN is OVERWHELMING.

The COINCIDENCES are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere CHANCE or to claim it needs no EXPLANATION.

The dials are set too PRECISELY to have been a RANDOM ACCIDENT.

Darwin made evolution a scientific concept by claiming to show… that major transformations could occur in  very small steps by purely natural (i.e. “random”) means major transformations undirected, spontaneous and by chance darwinists claim evolution  “has a BUILDING effect so powerful that it can begin with a bacterial cell and GRADUALLY CRAFT it’s descendants over billions of years to produce such wonders as trees, flowers, ants, birds and humans”

  Phillip Johnson – “How do we KNOW all this is possible?”

 “Absent an explanation of HOW fundamental transformat-ions can occur, the bare statement that ‘humans evolved from fish’ is NOT IMPRESSIVE” …

 What makes the fish story impressive and credible is to show HOW a fish changed  into a human

 Colin Patterson of the  British Museum : “a fact of evolution is VACCUOUS unless it comes with a supporting theory

“design”and science – physics
”random”, “accidental” precision beyond belief life balanced on a razor’s edge

Does “scientific” evidence  support “creation” by undirected, spontaneous and chance methods ???

Is the “logic” of Darwinism supported by the evidence of “science” ???

Does “evidence” show the cosmos originated by undirected, spontaneous and chance methods ???

or does “science” provide evidence for the existence of supernatual “design” ?  does “science” support the existence of “god” ?

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator” – Louis Pasteur

“From a knowledge of God’s work we whall know him” –  Robert Boyle, father of modern chemistry

Darwin On Trial: an evolution-ary “DEAD END”?
the LIMITS of materialism  & “science”

Darwin may have “MISLED science into a DEAD END, the biologist shi v. liu observed

“Did you IMAGINE that SCIENCE was a DISINTERESTED PURSUIT of the TRUTH?  well,  you were wrong”
― david berlinski, the devil’s delusion: atheism and its scientific pretensions

David Berlinski explores the LIMITS of science and the PRETENSIONS  of those who insist it can be – indeed MUST be – the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves:

 “Scientists do NOTHING to ANSWER the QUESTIONS that RELIGION ASKS, and they FAIL to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated”

“the idea that the ‘world of matter’ is the ‘world that matters’ is simply not true”

David Berlinski  turns the scientific community’s cherished SKEPTICISM back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:

•         has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?   not even close.

•         has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is herenot even close.

•          has quantum cosmology EXPLAINED the EMERGENCE of the universe or  WHY it is here? not even close.

•          have the sciences EXPLAINED why our universe seems to be FINE-TUNED to allow for the existence of life? not even close.

•          are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is NOT religious thought? close enough

•          has RATIONALISM in moral thought provided us with an UNDERSTANDING of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? not close enough.

•          has secularismin the terrible twentieth century been a force for GOOD? not even close to being close.

•          is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion   within the sciences? close enough.

•          does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?not even ballpark.

•          is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? dead on.

 “if moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is …physical theories, having said nothing about God, …right or wrong, good or bad”

to admit this would force philosophers to confront the possibility that the physical sciences offer a grossly inadequate view of reality”

david berlinsky: “is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in INTELLECTUAL CONTEMPT? dead on

 Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science.   The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race.  

Berlinski explores the LIMITS of science and the PRETENSION of those who insist it can be – indeed must be – the ULTIMATE touchstone for UNDERSTANDING our world and ourselves.

Scientists do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmosor the methods by which it might be investigated

   David Berlinski: “the idea that the ‘world of MATTER’ is the ‘world that matters’ is simply not true”

   this scientist vision, purely and simply MATERIALISIC,  in which man is only a cog of a bigger mechanism: the society or the state, seek to “improve” the human race to the point of creating the “superman”

   “the attack on traditional religious thought,” writes david berlinski in the devil’s delusion,“marks the consolidation in our time of science as the SINGLE SYSTEM of belief in which rational men and women might place THEIR FAITH, and if not their FAITH, then certainly their devotion”

MILITANT ATHEISM is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Bennett and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness

  “a defense [of religion] is needed because none has been forthcoming.

the discussionhas been ceded to men who regard religious belief with frivolous contempt” … 

“their books have in recent years poured from every press, and although differing widely in their style, they are identical in their message: because scientific theories are true, religious beliefs must be false
― David Berlinski, the Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

  these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement – one that now includes much of the scientific community

  “what Hitler … Mao and the SS … gestapo … the nkvd … the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, nazi doctors, communist party theoreticians, intellectuals, brown shirts, black shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing

  “and as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either. that is the meaning of a secular society”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

  “If moral statements are about something, then the universe is NOT QUITE as science suggests it is …physical theories, having said nothing about God, … RIGHT or WRONG, GOOD or BAD”

  “to admit this would force philosophers to confront the POSSIBILITY that the PHYSICAL SCIENCES offer a GROSSLY INADEQUATE VIEW of REALITY

“and since philosophers very much wish to think of themselves as scientists, this would offer them an unattractive choice between changing their allegiances or ACCEPTING THEIR IRRELEVANCE”

David Berlinsky:  “Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? not even close”

    “the argument that Hawking has offered may be conveyed by question-and-answer, as in the Catholic Catechism.   a catechism of quantum cosmology 

q: from what did our universe evolve?

a: our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. you may think of it as an egg.

q: what was the smaller, emptier universe like?

a: it was a four-dimensional sphere with nothing much inside it. you may think of that as weird.

q: howcan a sphere have four dimensions?

a: a sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three-dimensional sphere. you may think of that as obvious.

q: does the smaller, emptier universe have a name?

a: the smaller, emptier universe is called a de sitter universe. you may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de sitter.

q: is there anything else i should know about the smaller, emptier universe?

a: yes. it represents a solution to einstein’s field equations. you may think of that as a good thing.

q: where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg?

a: it was in the place where space as we know it did not may think of it as a sac.

q: when was it there?

a: it was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. you may think of it as a mystery.

q: where did the egg come from?

a: the egg did not actually come from anywhere. you may think of this as astonishing.

q: if the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there?

a: the egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. you may think of this as a done deal.

q: how did our universe evolve from the egg?

a: it evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. you may think of that as just one of those things.

This catechism, I should add, is NOT a PARODY of quantum cosmology. It IS quantum cosmology.”

― David Berlinski, the devil’s delusion: atheism and its scientific pretensions

 “Just WHO has IMPOSED on the SUFFERING HUMAN RACE poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for zyklon b, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental missiles , military space platforms and nuclear weapons?

If memory serves it was NOT the VATICAN”

― David Berlinski, the devil’s delusion: atheism and its scientific pretensions

CONCLUSIONS – scientific vs religious FUNDAMENTALISM –
pseudo science and religion darwinism as modern MYTH

Colin Patterson  is head of the department of paleontologyat the british musem of natural history.  He compared creationism with evolution and characterized BOTH as scientifically VACCUOUS, … held primarily on the basis of FAITH