domingo, 30 de outubro de 2011


Most sceptics and atheists never mind "...that both Dawkins’ and Hawking’s books have been rubished by fellow scientists and even by some atheists, the fact remains that these books sell in their millions while theistic rejoinders barely make it to the bookshop shelves. The Bishops need to ponder why this is so. Let me suggest some reasons…the protests have come more from fellow-scientists than from theologians who have remained strangely muted … gagged by the complementarity paradigm which scares them into silence.

This problem arises in its strongest form with the theory of macro-evolution. As I seek to show in WMG, this theory has little genuinely scientific support but is ‘sold’ as true science on the deceitful grounds that micro-evolution (small-scale changes in organisms) is an established fact. Virtually all the evidence offered for evolutionary origins rests on observations of micro-evolution (plus an interpretation of the fossil record based upon macro-evolutionary presuppositions). Yet scientists know all too well the dangers of extrapolating small-scale processes beyond the range in which they can be tested experimentally. Why, then, do evolutionists do it? Because complementarity frees them from any consideration of non-material processes such as divine creation and commits them to the fiction that science must, by definition, be able to explain everything by purely natural cause and effect.


The psalmist, addressing himself to God, asks, ‘What is man, that you are mindful of him?’ (Ps. 8:3-4). Most of us, at some time or another, repeat this question because it is only as we understand what man is that we really know how to address ourselves to life. Our interpretation of the world around us, our ambitions, our attitudes towards our fellow human beings — all these things are critically affected by what we believe about the essential nature of man.
What options are available to us? The four options which I am going to put to you encompass, in my view at least, the whole range of possibilities open to thinking man. There are two options which we may call evolutionary, and two which we may call theistic or creationist, and we shall look at these in turn.


The theory of biological evolution begins with a common observation, namely, that in any species of creature or plant there are continual variations. No human child is completely identical to its parent. No dog, no fish, no flower reproduces identically. This is a matter of common experience. It is also the first point where serious confusion arises, because changes from generation to generation can be produced by two quite distinct causes.
The first is the redistribution of the same genetic material. We can talk, if you like, about the ‘gene pool’ in a species. As members of that species interbreed, different genes in the parental chromosomes come into conjunction and produce certain characteristics in the offspring — blue eyes or brown eyes, different colours of skin, the height to which a person grows, and so on. These variations within a species are nothing to do with evolution. They follow from the basic laws of genetics which were spelled out by Mendel in 1859, and they demonstrate the immense amount of variety that can arise within a species. No matter how long that process of variation goes on, however, it is always convergent. That is, it always leaves you with the same species, whether it be a dog, a fish, or a chrysanthemum. Almost infinite variations can occur by recombination of the same genetic material, as animal and plant breeders have demonstrated time and time again. But these variations can never give rise to a change of species. This has seldom been made clear in the popular writings on the theory of evolution.

The changes that can give rise, in principle, to a process of evolution are known as mutations, where the genetic material is actually transformed by some external agency or by an accident during cell division. Mutations may occur spontaneously or may be induced by radiation, chemical treatment or some other means. Mutations take the system outside the existing potentialities in the ‘gene pool’ of a species. Typical effects of mutation include deficiencies in certain body chemicals, such as the haemoglobin in our blood, deformities, and the inability to manufacture pigment (albinism is the result of such a mutation.) Such mutations have been studied in the laboratory and the rate at which they occur can be measured in rapidly reproducing species such as bacteria. Mutations are almost invariably harmful or neutral in their effects on the viability of the organism.

But, says the evolutionist, mutation may on rare occasions give rise to an advantageous feature in the animal or plant. When this occurs the advantaged member of the population survives longer and produces more offspring. Thus ‘natural selection’ chooses out advantaged members which eventually come to predominate and so the species moves forward. Well, in theory that can happen. I have no quarrel with the basic ideas of mutation and natural selection as mechanisms which operate in nature. But in all the work that has been done since Darwin wrote his Origin of Species, there has been no direct evidence of any mutation that has produced long-term advantages for a species. It is an arguable point, but the rates at which such advantageous mutations occur, if they ever do, persuade many biologists that this process could not have given rise to the development of species or different phyla (the major life-form groupings) from some original ‘germ of life’. [This subject of ‘beneficial’ mutations is treated in detail in WMG chapter 13; ‘The mighty mutation


Let me just give one or two quotations, because this may put things more succinctly. Dr R. Laird Harris writes:
‘For over half a century scientists at Columbia University have been studying the common fruit fly (Drosophila), with a view to observing or inducing changes by mutations in them. Flies have been raised in varying environments, differences in temperature, humidity and the like, treated with x-rays and nuclear radiation. There have been changes. But some of the changes have been fatal. Others have altered the colour or size of eyes, wings and bristle hairs. Certain scientists would affirm that new species have been formed. This depends heavily upon one’s definition of species. Undoubtedly new types of fruit flies have been produced. But whether anything has been produced which approaches an organism that shows any major difference has been denied also. They are still fruit flies. It appears that breeding of new varieties within certain limits is easily possible. Even producing new giant strains of plants by doubling the chromosomes is feasible. But to form a new major type of organism just has not been done. If one sticks to history, and avoids prophecy in this matter, one sees that evolution by the addition of small mutations has not been demonstrated. Changes do not proceed towards a different type, they cluster around the type of the original organism.’

The unconvincing character of mutation plus natural selection as a sufficient mechanism of evolution is half admitted even in the most confident assertions of evolutionists. Thus Theodosius Dobzhansky writes; ‘The occurrence of the evolution of life in the history of the earth is established about as well as events not witnessed by human observers can be … The most pressing problems of evolutionary biology seem, at present, to belong to two groups — those concerned with the mechanics of evolution and those dealing with the biological uniqueness of man.’
This ardent champion of evolution is forced to admit that the mechanics or mechanism of evolution still present pressing problems. (This is no less true in 1980 than in 1958.) [Or in 2011].
R. B. Goldschmitz, a geneticist at the University of California, writes; ‘Nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micro-mutations. In the best known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a species in nature.’

Writing in his introduction to a 1959 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, W. R. Thompson says; ‘There is a great divergence of opinion amongst biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusions.’(4) [For a recent ‘take’ on this subject of debated mechanisms see What Darwin got wrong by evolutionists Jerry Fodor & Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, 2010. Daniel Osherson of Princeton University calls the book ‘A formidable challenge to ... Darwinian orthodoxy in general’].
(This video ends with...another theory: unproved)

There are more fundamental objections to the Darwinian (or strictly, neo-Darwinian) mechanism of evolution by mutation and natural selection. In order to achieve advantageous changes there must have been a co-operative process which produced a number of compensating and reinforcing mutations at one and the same time. If we suggest, for example, that birds’ feathers arose by evolution from reptiles’ scales, we must postulate not one but a very large number of mutations, involving not only the physical form of the feathers but the controlling muscles, the oil-secreting glands and so on. Yet the advantage of feathers over scales, (which alone would enable natural selection to operate) could not emerge until the feathers had progressed to the stage of having a different function from that of the scale. The likelihood of the many reinforcing mutations necessary to carry forward the transformation all occurring before selection pressures could operate is remote.

Take, as another example, the long neck of the giraffe. This is often given as an example of evolution. The giraffe was advantaged by having a longer neck because it could then eat food higher up in times of drought and famine. But the long neck of the giraffe could not have evolved without corresponding (and in evolutionary terms, quite independent) changes in the vascular system. This is because the difference in blood pressure between the ‘head up’ and ‘head down’ position is so great that the brain could not tolerate it without an intricate system which prevents this being a problem. It is no use just evolving a long neck. At the same time you have to evolve the appropriate anatomy and physiology to enable that long neck to give advantage to the animal. The chances of this happening by the coincidence of random mutations (in the various genes responsible for these different features of the animal) are incredibly small. On a more general note, one might also ask why all antelopes and related creatures did not evolve long necks if they were of such selective value to one species.
The first problem, then, is that the evolutionary hypothesis of vast change occurring by small mutations is quite inadequate to account for the development of entirely new forms of life.


The main building block of the theory of evolution, the fossil record, proves anything but the validity of that theory. Let me quote Professor Vialleton, a Frenchman, writing as long ago as 1924: ‘There is, then, when one considers evolution in the light of the real evidence, both great doubt and also exaggeration of its value, resulting in the idea that is very anthropomorphic, namely that everything has always begun very humbly and later has developed into very complex and lofty forms. Once again, one must say that this is not the picture presented by nature. One scarcely sees, throughout the geological ages, a gradual, slow multiplication of types of organisation. One does not at first find a unicellular being, then simple colonies of cells, then cellanturates, etc. On the contrary, Louis Agassiz remarked a long time ago in 1859, that in the first known fossils one finds, side by side, representatives of all the great groups, except the vertebrates, which seems to prove that the living world from its origin has been composed of diverse types, perfectly distinct one from the other, which have divided amongst themselves the various functions of life. Evolution has not begun from forms, truly simple in order to pass over into more complicated forms. The types of organisation one finds have always displayed their essential character initially. Genuine evolution, therefore, as one ascends the geological column from the first to the last representatives of any type of organisation, is trivial in sum and scarcely permits one to believe in the overweening power to effect biological transformation.’
[This is widely admitted today in 2011 by palaeontologists and is what led Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould to advance their theory of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ to explain the lack of gradual transitions in the fossil record].

One could multiply this kind of quotation. Coulter, a biologist, tells us that the construction of a family tree is troublesome because of the missing links. He writes (my italics); ‘Botanists construct as best they can an imaginary picture of the missing link so as to complete the sequence of steps in the evolution of the plant kingdom. Obviously such a practice is mainly guesswork, but like so many hypotheses has been very useful in organising subject matter and stimulating research. The record of the rocks reveals practically nothing of the earlier chapters in the evolution of the plant kingdom.

For these, therefore, we must rely on types of plants still in existence plus a liberal measure of scientific imagination.’
As you read this kind of quotation from the protagonists of evolution you begin to think, ‘What substance is there in the theory?’ The embarrassment is that in the early days of evolutionary theory much appeal was made to the incompleteness of the geological record. The links were missing. The expected transitional forms were absent but this could always be blamed on a lack of information; the fossil record was incomplete. But the argument has worn increasingly thin with the passing years.

The biological record is so infinitely varied, the number of fossils and remains so fantastic, that if there were transitional forms they would most certainly have turned up. There are, of course, extinct life-forms which are unknown today, and some of these may have been transitional, but the number of such examples is very small, and who is to say that a given fossil was transitional and not simply another distinct species separate from the two other forms it is supposed to link together? Indeed, evolutionary relationships between fossil forms (or living ones for that matter) can only be inferred if one first assumes that evolution took place. For example, the celebrated series of horses, which is often claimed as proof of evolution, are simply remains that have been arranged in ascending order of size on the assumption that they are related by evolutionary succession!

In the writer’s view, the fossil record now constitutes a severe embarrassment to the theory of evolution and some biologists, recognizing this, are beginning to talk about a multiplicity of evolutionary trees, that is, they suppose that the basic groups of creatures arose from separate origins. This is a current theory and shows the desperate straits into which the original theory has fallen. [For an up to date treatment of the ‘tree of life’ controversy see]


I said at the beginning of this chapter that there were two evolutionary alternatives. Both of these have the same common origin which I have discussed already. In what way, then, do they differ?
If one believes that man is a piece of cosmic driftwood thrown up on the beach of time by a blind process of evolution, then rationally there is no meaning to life. Man is just an accident. There is no such thing as destiny, meaning or significance. One is forced into an existentialist philosophy; there is no meaning to our existence; ‘eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.’ This is the position at which many people have arrived but to the majority of thinking people this nihilistic approach is intolerable. We just feel that there must be meaning, that it must matter whether I exist or do not exist, that mankind is not just a cosmic joke. The nihilistic and strictly logical attitude is not only very unwelcome but unacceptable to the majority of men.
So we are led to our other evolutionary alternative. Beginning with the blind biological process of evolution, some people (whose ideas are best known under the title ‘scientific humanism’) say; ‘Now we have reached this point, we refuse to give up and say the whole thing is meaningless. We must take advantage of the evolutionary accident we call mankind and forge for ourselves a destiny to which we can aspire.’

Now this is a noble viewpoint and one must respect the intellectual calibre of some of those who subscribe to it. Here is no nihilism but rather a willingness to accept the challenge. But I personally must reject this alternative for one basic reason — it puts far too much confidence in human nature. The only political group who tried deliberately to do what the scientific humanists tell us we should do were the Nazis in Germany, and they subscribed very fully to this opinion. You might also put certain contemporary racialist groups into this category, who keep alive the immoral dream of a race of men superior to their fellows.
Scientific humanists would throw up their hands in horror at the examples I have chosen. This destiny of man, they would protest, must be shaped by wise men, good and true. But their very evolutionary philosophy makes it difficult to define what you mean by wise, good and true, because it affords no ultimate or absolute moral values. Moral values, in their view, have just arisen in the course of history; they have no absolute significance. My definition of who is wise and what is good may differ from yours, it may differ from Huxley’s and Haldane’s and it certainly differs from Adolf Hitler’s. The problem is: who is to decide? Who is to take control? Can any intellectual elite be trusted to remain incorrupt? And even if we did find somebody whom everybody trusted, how capable is man of creating his own destiny, and then steering his ship safely home to its harbour? We have only to look around the world today and down the recent history of man to find that, with all his education, knowledge, science, culture and powers, mankind inspires little confidence as the arbiter of his own destiny.



The two alternatives discussed so far I have called evolutionary — nihilistic existentialism and the scientific humanism which leads to an undue reliance on the human intellect and human nature. Both, surely, are blind alleys in our search for meaning in life and existence.
The third alternative, to which we now come, still retains the theory of evolution but sees it as a controlled or purposive process. I am going to shovel a lot of different philosophies into this particular sack! It covers an enormous range of ideas, from a Christian viewpoint which believes in a personal Creator who used the process of evolution to effect creation, to the mystical philosophies like the Bergsonian concept of the élan vital, the life force, in which the very process of evolution is endowed with a mystica, quality. It also includes the approach of Teilhard de Chardin, who generalized evolution from the biological realm onward into an evolution of consciousness, mind, society and finally spirit. This is a teleological theory, looking forward to a goal, a peak to which man is climbing. That peak of attainment, that total spiritual consciousness, de Chardin refers to as ‘God’.

All these approaches have in common the retention of biological evolution. At the same time they avoid the philosophical dilemmas of the pure evolutionist and retain the idea of God or at least the concept of the spiritual.
I reject this also, first of all because it is building upon the foundation of biological evolution which I believe is scientifically unsound; and secondly, as long as biological evolution is retained, the spiritual dimension is just like icing on the cake. Let me explain what I mean by this. There is a philosophical principle derived from Occam’s Razor that forbids any explanation of a phenomenon that is more complicated than it needs to be. If an evolutionary paradigm is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, namely the biosphere and ultimately the universe itself, why introduce concepts such as ‘spirituality’ or God? This is a very difficult question to answer.

A third most fundamental objection to theistic evolution is that although it appears to reconcile the evolutionary theory and religion it does so at a great cost, sacrificing some of the deepest insights of the Christian faith. I believe, for example, there is a basic conflict between the teachings of Scripture and theistic evolution and this theme is developed in detail in chapter 5.


Why is the theory of evolution so popular? Why has not Einstein’s theory of relativity or Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory attained the same degree of popular acclaim? Why is our fourth and final option, which is a thorough-going creationist viewpoint, so unacceptable to the mind of modern man?
I would suggest that evolutionary theory provides a kind of escape route for the human mind. There is something rather uncomfortable and inconvenient to the human heart about the concept of God. Once you admit that God, a personal supreme Being of some kind, created the heavens and the earth — and that such a personality also created the human race — you immediately admit a relationship with that personality. And such a relationship of creature to a Creator automatically involves the idea of accountability. If l am a creature from the Creator’s hand, by whatever route, then I am in some way accountable to Him. The first chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans says that men ‘did not like to retain God in their knowledge’. There was something uncongenial about the idea of God and the inference of accountability. Somehow I have to answer to God, to my Creator, for the way in which I have used my life.
These thoughts are difficult for the human heart to accept. The Bible puts it even more strongly; ‘The carnal [that is, natural] mind is enmity against God’ (Romans 8:7). The natural mind is not only uncomfortable at the idea of accountability, but is positively rebellious against it. So a theory which enables us to dismiss God from the universe is a very acceptable and very comforting theory. I believe that this accounts for both the widespread popularity of evolution and the emotional tenacity with which it is normally embraced.

But evolution does not really solve the problem. If God did not create mankind and we evolved instead by processes of biological evolution following chemical evolution, stellar evolution, back to the primeval clouds of hydrogen, where did everything come from? ‘Well,’ you might say, ‘it could have all been energy before it was matter.’ Where then did the energy come from? You will see that sooner or later you reach a full stop. Now you may say, ‘All right, we admit to having no explanation of ultimate origins, but there is no particular advantage in adding one more step and saying God created the energy or the matter, because then you ask “Where did God come from?” and you are no closer to an answer.’ Let us accept for a moment that the idea of God may not help you at that point, but it does not hinder you either! [The big bang theory of the origin of the universe is discussed at length in WMG Chapter 7].
To me it is just as respectable, scientifically and intellectually, to claim that God created matter and energy, as it is to say that either matter and energy were always there, or simply to say we do not know where they came from. It is no more intellectually respectable to say that there is a process of continuous creation going on which we cannot study in the laboratory or know anything about — to claim that a process totally unknown to science — ‘must be going on because otherwise the alternative is God’.

It is no more rational or objective to say that than to say, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’
However, there are other advantages about the concept of God, and very profound advantages. For example, the evolutionary paradigm takes for granted the existence not only of matter and energy but also of physical (natural) law. It does not ask about the nature or origin of the very laws of nature to which it appeals. Why are there four quite different laws of force: gravitational, electromagnetic and the forces that hold the nucleus together, the ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ interactions? Why four, why not five, why not one? Science cannot answer that kind of question. The idea of God is a very satisfying hypothesis at this point. Not only do we identify God as the first cause and prime mover, the Creator, but we see Him throughout the universe as the sustainer and upholder of all things! There are two verses in the New Testament I would like to quote here. One says of Christ that He ‘[upholds] all things by the word of his power’ (Hebrews 1:3). The other, in Colossians 1:17, says, ‘By him all things consist.’ These verses state that the integrity of the physical universe as we know it, the laws by which it operates, can be equated to ‘the word of His power’. The laws of science are a present-tense moment-by-moment manifestation of the existence and will of God. If God were to vanish the universe and all the laws of nature would pass out of existence at that same moment. That is what the New Testament teaches and to me as a scientist it is an extremely satisfying hypothesis. To me as a Christian it is more than a hypothesis.
It leaves us with both a Creator and an ever-present cause for the whole of existence. Moreover, it takes the miraculous out of the realm of fantasy. If the operation of scientific law, of gravitational law, of electromagnetic law and so on, is simply the moment-by-moment ‘upholding of all things’ by the word of God’s power, then the suspension of those laws, or the introduction of some temporary new law which we may class as miraculous, is no more difficult to explain than the existence of physical law itself. They are both of the same kind. They are both the moment-by-moment will of an immanent and almighty God.


Mutations are not evolution, the genetic variability has a large range of options and variations possible but always comes down to the same species, the genetic pool allows variability but in a long term "evolution" (variation is a better word) we will end up with the same species. These are some, not all, conclusions that take back many of the false certainties in evolution and some theories on the evolution of species. Also should be noted that single-cell organisms didn't all evolved to something else, so no "step forward" on what comes to improving a species and therefore evolving...complex-cell organisms have always been complex according to recent theories and findings. So, a lot yet to explain starting on "why?" : why are we here, why would energy burst into something so complex and harmonious out of the blue? why and how would atoms organize themselves intelligently? it's up to you to think about it...

It would not be honest of me to show my sources so, for more information:

And also a book: "Who made God?" [Kindle Edition]
Edgar Andrews

Until the next post: be happy :)

domingo, 23 de outubro de 2011


"... 2. How did humans evolve? ..."

Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor we share with modern African apes, 5 to 8 million years ago, there have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures. Many of these hominid species are close relatives, but not human ancestors. Most went extinct without giving rise to other species. Some of the extinct hominids known today, however, are almost certainly direct ancestors of Homo sapiens. While the total number of species that existed and the relationships among them is still unknown, the picture becomes clearer as new fossils are found. Humans evolved through the same biological processes that govern the evolution of all life on Earth. See "What is evolution?", "How does natural selection work?", and "How do organisms evolve?..."

‘Lucy’ is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as a certain link between ape-like creatures and man—thus supposedly proving evolution. But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature ‘in between’ ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’.2

Oxnard’s firm conclusion? ‘The australopithecines are unique.’3

Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of ‘missing link’ status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.

EDIT: With quotes from an evolutionist:

Australopithecus (‘southern ape’) is the name given to a number of fossils found in Africa. These are claimed by evolutionists to be the closest to the alleged common ancestor of apes and humans. However, Dr Fred Spoor has done CAT scans of the inner ear region of some of these skulls. These show that their semi-circular canals, which determine balance and ability to walk upright, ‘resemble those of the extant great apes’.6

The most well known australopithecine is ‘Lucy’, a 40% complete skeleton found by Donald Johanson in Ethiopia in 1974 and called Australopithecus afarensis.7 Casts of Lucy’s bones have been imaginatively restored in museums worldwide to look like an apewoman, e.g. with ape-like face and head, but human-like body, hands and feet. However, the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones! Several other specimens of A. afarensis do have the long curved fingers and toes of tree-dwellers, as well as the restricted wrist anatomy of knuckle-walking chimpanzees and gorillas.8,9,10 Dr Marvin Lubenow quotes the evolutionists Matt Cartmill (Duke University), David Pilbeam (Harvard University) and the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard University):

‘The australopithecines are rapidly sinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes … .’11

"Lucy" the famous link between humans and apes is no link at all...

"..."The evidence given... makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal)..."

Neanderthal was discovered in the Neander Valley of Germany, in 1856. Shortly after its discovery, University of Berlin Professor Rudolf Virchow (regarded as the father of modern pathology) concluded that Neanderthal was simply an unfortunate Homo sapiens who had suffered childhood rickets and adult arthritis, and had been victim of several nasty blows to the head. Depicted in textbooks and museums as a subhuman "ape-man" for over a century, it is now agreed that Virchow was correct - the Neanderthals were simply a distinctive, sturdily built people group - clearly 100 percent human, with a brain capacity actually larger than the current norm. Some Neanderthal individuals suffered from disfiguring diseases, reflecting dietary, social and environmental factors - as with modern man.

The Piltdown fossils were discovered between 1908 and 1915, at gravel pits in Piltdown, England. For about forty years, Piltdown Man was highly publicized as proof that man had descended from ape-like animals. In fact, it was an elaborate hoax, and in 1953 the British Museum issued a statement identifying it as such.

What was found were a skull that was obviously human-like, and a jawbone that looked very ape-like, but had human-like teeth. In fact, Piltdown Man consisted of a human skull mated with the mandible (lower jaw) and canine tooth of an orangutan (confirmed biochemically in 1982). The orangutan remains had been heavily altered and transplanted to the site. The deception included breaking off parts of the mandible that would reveal the mismatch, coloring it with stain to match the skull, filing the teeth of the mandible to match those of the human upper jaw, and filing the canine tooth, to make it look properly worn.

Leading evolutionists of the day touted Nebraska Man as a genuine ape-man, including Henry F. Osborn, head paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, in New York. In February 1922, Dr. Osborn received a single fossil tooth, discovered at Snake Creek, Nebraska. A full reconstruction was commissioned, based on nothing more than this tooth and the desire to produce "evidence" of human evolution. Very soon, widespread illustrations of an ape-like subhuman appeared, often in newspapers. But almost as quickly, the publicity became a big embarrassment. By 1927, it came out that later excavations of the rest of the remains revealed the true identity of Nebraska Man: not an ape-man, or even an ape, but an extinct peccary or wild pig! Then, in 1972, it was discovered that, in fact, "Nebraska Pig" is not even extinct, but can be found alive and well in Paraguay.

Java Man was discovered by a Dutch anatomist, Eugene Dubois, on the island of Java. A skullcap and three teeth were found in 1891, and in 1892, a femur (thighbone) was found 46 feet away. Dubois held that the skullcap had both human and ape features, whereas the thighbone appeared very human-like. Dubois claimed until his death that he had found "the real missing link," his purpose in journeying to the Dutch East Indies.

The doctor was not completely forthright, however - he also found two obviously human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls) near the Java Man remains, at about the same level. He kept them secret for thirty years (until 1920), while promoting Java Man as the missing link. Obviously, Java Man could not be the evolutionary ancestor of humans with whom it coexisted. While the shape of the skull would be unusual today, it falls within the range of human variability. Java Man is now classified as Homo erectus, meaning erect or upright-walking human. Thus, even evolutionists agree that these fossils are human - not an ape-man.

Peking Man was discovered in China, in the 1920s and 1930s, and like Java Man has been renamed Homo erectus. The fossils, found about 25 miles from Peking (Beijing), consisted mostly of skull fragments (only five skulls were intact enough to gauge the brain capacity) and teeth, with very few limb bones. All of the original bones were mysteriously "lost" between 1941 and 1945. (Fortunately, some excellent casts of the originals were made before their disappearance.) Peking Man was a bit smaller overall than the average human today, but in all respects falls within the modern range of variation, and its middle ear structure has been found to be just like ours.

As with Java Man, much of the truth surrounding Peking Man was kept from the public, while evolutionists acclaimed it as a "missing link." At the site were also found the remains of ten fully human inhabitants who quarried the limestone, built fires, and left behind a variety of tools. It seems that - far from being the ancestor of modern man - Peking Man was not only a contemporary, but may also have been his dinner. The evidence suggests that the larger people removed (and very possibly ate) the brains of the smaller Peking Man individuals.

Homo Habilis
In 1964, Louis Leakey and his colleagues announced Homo habilis as a new human ancestor. Four "individuals" had been assembled from dissociated skull fragments, hand bones, and foot bones. Widely acclaimed as the oldest link between ape and man, much publicity came through the National Geographic Society. But none of the alleged individuals were discovered intact, and some experts suspected that Leakey had a mixture of ape and human material. Also, much of the hand and foot material - claimed to indicate tool making ability and bipedality - was juvenile, making it hard to evaluate.

In 1972, Leakey's son, Richard, found the controversial Skull 1470. Its features and large capacity were "too modern" to fit the mainstream evolutionary scenario, given its alleged age of 2.9 million years. The younger Leakey deliberately reconstructed the skull to give it a "more transitional" ape-like look, and less than ten years later (1981), the controversy was more or less settled, as the accepted age had been reduced to 1.9 million years. Skull 1470 was then classified as Homo habilis, a "win-win" move that supposedly boosted the credibility and status of both Leakeys and their famed fossils.

Then came the first discovery of an intact individual in 1986 - an adult. Evolutionists were surprised that it was smaller than its alleged ancestor, Lucy. The consensus now is that the genuine habilis was just another australopithecine ape that never belonged in the genus Homo, whereas the genuine skull 1470 should be classified as modern man, Homo sapiens. As for the "genuine" Homo habilis - it never existed. It is now considered to be an "invalid taxon."

Millions have heard of Lucy, a three-foot tall Australopithicine found by Don Johanson in Ethiopia in 1974. Publicized as our oldest direct human ancestor, many still believe that her genes are in all of us. The name "Lucy" comes from the Beatles' song, "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," on a camp loudspeaker when she was found. A very small specimen, Lucy may or may not actually be a female. In either case, the famous fossil is remarkably complete (about 40 percent), accounting for much of the attention she has received. Yet, Lucy's skull is so incomplete that no firm conclusion can be drawn about her particular species.

However, Lucy is not alone. Many australopithecines like her have been studied extensively. Computer scan analyses of the inner ears, skulls, and bones indicate that these creatures may have walked more upright than most apes, but clearly would have gotten around on all four legs, and very likely spent a lot of time in trees. Lucy was an extinct type of ape, very similar to modern pygmy chimpanzees - and nothing more. Many leading evolutionists, including Richard Leakey, now share this view.

Ramapithecus, like Lucy, was promoted as the most primitive hominid ancestor of modern man, in our direct line of evolutionary descent. Numerous illustrations showed Ramapithecus walking in a nearly human upright manner. Even though the evidence was weak, this view was widely accepted for many years, due largely to the persuasiveness of Harvard University's David Pilbeam. Later, Pilbeam found additional fossil evidence which made it obvious that this creature could not be the ancestor of humans. As it turns out, Ramapithecus is simply another ape, an extinct type of orangutan.

We see that some of the alleged evolutionary "ape-men" have been deliberate hoaxes. Others have simply been cases of poor science, often motivated by overzealous and wishful thinking. We do observe evidence in the fossil record of natural variability within the ape and human populations, and a grim chronicle of disease, suffering, and death. In every case, however, the bottom line is the same: there is no fossil evidence of ape-to-man human evolution.

The "missing links" are still missing, because they never existed in the first place. From the beginning, true apes and true humans have coexisted as biologically distinct, created kinds - the works of the Creator.

For further study

Paul S. Taylor - The Illustrated Origins Answer Book
Marvin L. Lubenow - Bones of Contention, a Creationist's Assessment of Human Fossils":

"... 5. What do humans have in common with single-celled organisms?..."

Evolution describes the change over time of all living things from a single common ancestor. The "tree of life" illustrates this concept. Every branch represents a species, each connected to other such branches and the rest of tree as a whole. The forks separating one species from another represent the common ancestors shared by these species. In the case of the relatedness of humans and single-celled organisms, a journey along two different paths -- one starting at the tip of the human branch, the other starting at the tip of a single-celled organism's branch -- would ultimately lead to a fork near the base of the tree: the common ancestor shared by these two very different types of organisms. This journey would cross countless other forks and branches along the way and span perhaps more than a billion years of evolution, but it demonstrates that even the most disparate creatures are related to one another -- that all life is interconnected..."

"...Living apes, on the other hand, are not considered to be hominids, but rather are called hominoids because they are only similar to humans but did not evolve into them. Nonetheless, evolutionists are willing to accept mere similarities between the fossilized bones of extinct apes and the bones of living men as “proof” of our ape ancestry...Because of the rarity of fossil hominids, even many of those who specialize in the evolution of man have never actually seen an original hominid fossil, and far fewer have ever had the opportunity to handle or study one. Most scientific papers on human evolution are based on casts of original specimens (or even on published photos, measurements and descriptions of them). Access to original fossil hominids is strictly limited by those who discovered them and is often confined to a few favored evolutionists who agree with the discoverers’ interpretation of the fossil...Since there is much more prestige in finding an ancestor of man than an ancestor of living apes (or worse yet, merely an extinct ape), there is immense pressure on paleoanthropologists to declare almost any ape fossil to be a “hominid.” As a result, the living apes have pretty much been left to find their own ancestors.

Many students in our schools are taught human evolution (often in the social studies class!) by teachers having little knowledge of human anatomy, to say nothing of ape anatomy. But it is useless to consider the fossil evidence for the evolution of man from apes without first understanding the basic anatomical and functional differences between human and ape skeletons.
The problem in declaring a fossil ape to be a human ancestor (i.e., a hominid) on the basis of certain humanlike features of the teeth is that some living apes have these same features and they are not considered to be ancestors of man. Some species of modern baboons, for example, have relatively small canines and incisors and relatively large molars. While most apes do have thin enamel, some apes such as the orangutans have relatively thick enamel. Clearly, teeth tell us more about an animal’s diet and feeding habits than its supposed evolution. Nonetheless, thick enamel is one of the most commonly cited criteria for declaring an ape fossil to be a hominid.

Making men out of apes...

Many apemen are merely apes that evolutionists have attempted to upscale to fill the gap between apes and men. These include all the australopithecines, as well as a host of other extinct apes such as Ardipithecus, Orrorin, Sahelanthropus and Kenyanthropus. All have obviously ape skulls, ape pelvises and ape hands and feet. Nevertheless, australopithecines (especially Australopithecus afarensis) are often portrayed as having hands and feet identical to modern man, a ramrod-straight, upright posture and a human gait.

The best-known specimen of A. afarensis is the fossil commonly known as “Lucy.” A life-like mannequin of “Lucy” in the Living World exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo shows a hairy humanlike female body with human hands and feet but with an obviously apelike head. The three-foot-tall Lucy stands erect in a deeply pensive pose with her right forefinger curled under her chin, her eyes gazing off into the distance as if she were contemplating the mind of Newton.

Few visitors are aware that this is a gross misrepresentation of what is known about the fossil ape Australopithecus afarensis. These apes are known to be long-armed knuckle-walkers with locking wrists. Both the hands and feet of this creature are clearly apelike. Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman2 have reported that the hands of this species are “surprisingly similar to hands found in the small end of the pygmy chimpanzee-common chimpanzee range.” They report that the feet, like the hands, are “long, curved and heavily muscled” much like those of living tree-dwelling primates. The authors conclude that no living primate has such hands and feet “for any purpose other than to meet the demands of full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life.”

"...Exceptional Humans Did Not Evolve from Apes
Thursday, October 1, 2009, 2:04 PM
Wesley J. Smith

Human exceptionalism received a boost today with the news that human beings apparently did not evolve from apes...It turns out that our apparent genetic closeness does not mean that we are that closely related to chimps at all–a meme used often to attack human exceptionalism":

"...Albert Einstein's reaction to the consequences of his own general theory of relativity appear to acknowledge the threat of an encounter with God. Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a beginning. However, before publishing his cosmological inferences, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a "fudge factor," to yield a static model for the universe...Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the universe? It goes right back to that first argument, the cosmological argument: (a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause; (b) If the universe began to exist, then (c) the universe must have a cause. You can see the direction in which this argument is flowing--a direction of discomfort to some physicists...About the 1992 observations, which were from the COBE (the NASA satellite Cosmic Background Explorer), there was a story on the front page of virtually every newspaper in the world. The thing that the London Times, New York Times, etc. seemed to pick up on was a statement by George Smoot, the team leader from the Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory. He said, "It's like looking at God." Obviously, this captured the public's attention.

A somewhat more sober assessment of the findings was given by Frederick Burnham, a science-historian. He said, "These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years...Burbidge does say something that is true, however. He favors the steady-state hypothesis and claims his view supports Hinduism and not Christianity. That is correct, because a steady-state theory of the universe, were it to be true, would provide some support for the endless cycles taught by Hinduism." (and other religions based on reincarnation or cycles)"... The big bang theory is significant evidence against Hinduism...two very popular views, which brings us to something very significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a popular view) and God is not con-tained within the universe (another popular view).

Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."

Stephen Hawking:

Hawking is probably the most famous living scientist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is available in paperback and I strongly recommend it. It has sold in excess of 10 million copies, and I think he sold about five million before the paperback version. For a book to sell so many copies is almost unheard of in the history of science writing.

There has been a film made about the book. The film is also good. There has even been a book made about the film. Hawking has a wonderful sense of humor. He writes in the introduction of the second book, "This is the book of the film of the book. I don't know if they are planning a film of the book of the film of the book."

I want to begin by saying something about Stephen Hawking's scientific research. Hawking has made his reputation by investigating, in great detail, one particular set of problems: the singularity and horizons around black holes and at the beginning of time.

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God
Henry F. Schaefer III


Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.

(This article is a transcript of a lecture Dr. Schaefer presented at the University of colorado in the spring of 1994, sponsored by Christian Leadership and other campus ministries. Over 500 students and professors were present.)

Stephen Hawking's bestseller A Brief History of Time is the most popular book about cosmology ever written. The questions cosmology addresses are scientifically and theologically profound. Hawking's book covers both of these implications.

Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole--it's structure, origin and development. I won't answer all the questions Hawking raises concerning cosmology, but I will try to make comments on many of them. I caution here that you should not confuse cosmology with cosmetology, the art of beautifying the hair, skin, and nails!

Here are some of the questions cosmology seeks to answer (As elsewhere in this lecture, I borrow heavily from astrophysicist Hugh Ross' excellent books The Fingerprint of God and The Creator and the Cosmos.):

Is the universe finite or infinite in extent and content?
Is it eternal or does it have a beginning?
Was it created? If not, how did it get here? If so, how was this creation accomplished and what can we learn about the agent and events of creation?
Who or what governs the laws and constants of physics? Are such laws the product of chance or have they been designed? How do they relate to the support and development of life?
Is there any knowable existence beyond the known dimensions of the universe?
Is the universe running down irreversibly or will it bounce back?

Let me begin with five traditional arguments for the existence of God. It may seem an unlikely starting point for this topic, but I think you'll see as time goes on that these arguments keep coming up. I'm not going to comment right away on whether these arguments are valid or not, but I will state them because throughout astrophysical literature these arguments are often referred to:

The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause.
The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.
The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an awareness implanted by a higher being.
The Big Bang
The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists. We could begin with Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919. He stated a dozen years later: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole." He later said, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started."

Albert Einstein's reaction to the consequences of his own general theory of relativity appear to acknowledge the threat of an encounter with God. Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a beginning. However, before publishing his cosmological inferences, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a "fudge factor," to yield a static model for the universe. Einstein later considered this to be the greatest blunder of his scientific career.

Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a personal God.

Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the universe? It goes right back to that first argument, the cosmological argument: (a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause; (b) If the universe began to exist, then (c) the universe must have a cause. You can see the direction in which this argument is flowing--a direction of discomfort to some physicists.

In 1946, George Gamow, a Russian-born scientist, proposed that the primeval fireball, the "big bang," was an intense concentration of pure energy. It was the source of all the matter that now exists in the universe. The theory predicts that all the galaxies in the universe should be rushing away from each other at high speeds as a result of that initial big bang. A dictionary definition of the hot big bang theory is "the entire physical universe, all the matter and energy and even the four dimensions of time and space, burst forth from a state of infinite or near infinite density, temperature, and pressure."

The 1965 observation of the microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from the Bell Telephone laboratories convinced most scientists of the validity of the big bang theory. Further observations reported in 1992 have moved the big bang theory from a consensus view to the nearly unanimous view among cosmologists: there was an origin to the universe approximately 15 billion years ago.

About the 1992 observations, which were from the COBE (the NASA satellite Cosmic Background Explorer), there was a story on the front page of virtually every newspaper in the world. The thing that the London Times, New York Times, etc. seemed to pick up on was a statement by George Smoot, the team leader from the Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory. He said, "It's like looking at God." Obviously, this captured the public's attention.

A somewhat more sober assessment of the findings was given by Frederick Burnham, a science-historian. He said, "These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years."

Not everyone was ecstatic about these observations that revealed the so-called "big bang ripples." Certainly, those who had argued so strongly and passionately for a steady-state model of the universe didn't like the interpretation of these results at all--primarily two persons, Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer, and Jeffrey Burbidge, a very distinguished astrophysicist at the University of California at San Diego.

We can begin to get into the philosophical implications of these observations when we assess Burbidge's statement (made during a radio discussion with Hugh Ross) on these things. Burbidge discounts the new experiment. He is a strong advocate still today, in the face of overwhelming evidence, of the steady-state theory. He says these new experiments come from "the first church of Christ of the big bang." I can tell you that my former colleague George Smoot, at the Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory, took strong exception to this statement. He absolutely insisted his observations were in no way colored by any religious presuppositions.

Burbidge does say something that is true, however. He favors the steady-state hypothesis and claims his view supports Hinduism and not Christianity. That is correct, because a steady-state theory of the universe, were it to be true, would provide some support for the endless cycles taught by Hinduism. The big bang theory is significant evidence against Hinduism.

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.
These are two very popular views, which brings us to something very significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a popular view) and God is not con-tained within the universe (another popular view).

Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."

I want to quote from a book that I don't recommend. It is by a brilliant physicist, Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner. It is called The God Particle and although the title sounds very appealing, the good information is all in the first paragraph. The rest of it is just a case for the building of the SSC, the Super Conducting-Super Collider, which we now know is not going to be built. Therefore the book is a bit of a Rip Van-Winkle sort of experience! But the first paragraph is wonderful; it's a great summary of what I have said so far:

In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.
That is about all that Lederman has to say about God--in the first paragraph--and that's the end of it. The thing that has made Hawking's book so popular is that he is talking about God from beginning to end.

Stephen Hawking
Hawking is probably the most famous living scientist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is available in paperback and I strongly recommend it. It has sold in excess of 10 million copies, and I think he sold about five million before the paperback version. For a book to sell so many copies is almost unheard of in the history of science writing.

There has been a film made about the book. The film is also good. There has even been a book made about the film. Hawking has a wonderful sense of humor. He writes in the introduction of the second book, "This is the book of the film of the book. I don't know if they are planning a film of the book of the film of the book."

I want to begin by saying something about Stephen Hawking's scientific research. Hawking has made his reputation by investigating, in great detail, one particular set of problems: the singularity and horizons around black holes and at the beginning of time. Now, everyone is sure if you encountered a black hole, it would be the last thing you ever encountered--and that is correct! A black hole is a massive system so centrally condensed that the force of gravity prevents everything within it, even light, from escaping.

Hawking's first major work was published with Roger Penrose, a physicist very famous in his own right, and George Ellis, during the period 1968-1970. They demonstrated that every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past. This is now known as the "singularity theorem," and is a tremendously important finding.

Later, working by himself, in 1974, he began to formulate ideas about the quantum evaporation of exploding black holes, the now famous "Hawking radiation." These are all tremendously important scientific works.

The work most referred to in A Brief History of Time is also the most speculative: the 1984 work with James Hartle, a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Using an elegant vacuum fluctuation model, they were able to provide a mathematical rationalization for the entire universe popping into existence at the beginning of time. This is also called the "universe as a wave function." I need to emphasize that they were using very simple models. Now, while such mathematical exercises are highly speculative, they may eventually lead us to a deeper understanding of this creation event.

Hawking is certainly the most famous physicist in history who has not won the Nobel Prize. This has puzzled people. They automatically assume he has won the Nobel Prize. He has not yet. This is because the Swedish Royal Academy demands that an award-winning discovery must be supported by verifiable experimental or observational evidence. Hawking's work, to date, remains unproved. The mathematics of his theory, however, are certainly beautiful and elegant. Science is just beginning to verify the existence of black holes, let alone verify "Hawking radiation" or any of his more radical theoretical proposals.

My opinion is that within the next year or two we will have firm evidence for the existence of black holes. Unfortunately, I think the person who will get the Nobel Prize will be the observa-tionalist who comes up with its data. So I think Hawking may not get the Nobel Prize soon, even though he's the world's most famous scientist.

Even if some aspects of Hawking's research turn out to be wrong, he will have had a profound impact on the history of scientific thought. Einstein was wrong about all matter of things, especially quantum mechanics, and we still recognize him as one of the three great geniuses of physics.

And God

A Brief History of Time says a lot about God. God is mentioned in this book from beginning to end. So let us try to put Hawking's opinions about God in some sort of a context. The context is that Stephen Hawking made up his mind about God long before he became a cosmologist.

The principle influence in his early life was his mother, Isabel. Isabel Hawking was a member of the Communist Party in England in the 1930's, and her son has carried a good bit of that intellectual baggage right through his life.

By the time he was 13, Hawking's hero was the atheist philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. At the same age, two of Hawking's friends became Christians as a result of the 1955 Billy Graham London campaign. According to his 1992 biographers, Hawking stood apart from these encounters with "a certain amused detachment." There is nothing in A Brief History of Time that deviates in a significant way from the religious views of the 13-year old Stephen Hawking..."
In his best-selling book "A Brief History of Time", physicist Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists find the theory he and his colleagues are looking for - a so-called "theory of everything" - then they will have seen into "the mind of God". Hawking is by no means the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, for example, has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman has suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be like looking into the face of God.
"...The Higgs boson, also called "God's particle"is the only Standard Model particle that has not been observed and is thought to be the mediator of mass...The Higgs boson is often referred to as "the God particle" by the media, after the title of Leon Lederman's book, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?. While use of this term may have contributed to increased media interest in particle physics and the Large Hadron Collider, many scientists dislike it as overstating the importance of the particle. In a renaming competition, a jury of physicists chose the name "the champagne bottle boson" as the best popular name."

"...Who created God? It is an age-old question that has plagued all those who like to think about the big questions. Having grown up as an agnostic non-Christian, it provided me with a potential reason why there might not be any god. Various religions tend to solve the problem in different ways. The LDS church (Mormonism) says that the God (Elohim) to whom we are accountable had a father god, then grew up on a planet as a man, and progressed to become a god himself. Many other religions have claimed that gods beget other gods. Of course the problem with this idea is how did the first god get here? This problem of infinite regression invalidates such religions. Christianity claims that God has always existed. Is this idea even possible? Does science address such issues?

This verse tells us that God was acting before time when He created the universe. Many other verses from the New Testament tells us that God was acting before time began, and so, He created time, along with the other dimensions of our universe:

•No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)
•This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)
•The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)
•To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)
The idea that God created time, along with the physical universe, is not just some wacky modern Christian interpretation of the Bible. Justin Martyr, a second century Christian apologist, in his Hortatory Address to the Greeks, said that Plato got the idea that time was created along with the universe from Moses:

"And from what source did Plato draw the information that time was created along with the heavens? For he wrote thus: “Time, accordingly, was created along with the heavens; in order that, coming into being together, they might also be together dissolved, if ever their dissolution should take place.” Had he not learned this from the divine history of Moses?"1

God exists in timeless eternityHow does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

God exists in multiple dimension of timeThe second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimension of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.
Why can't the universe be eternal? The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempt to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.2 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon.

What does science say about time?When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation (i.e., the Big Bang).3 In fact, if you examine university websites, you will find that many professors make such a claim - that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning of time (see The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning). Such assertions support the Bible's claim that time began at the creation of the universe.

Conclusion: God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.7 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).

"...Its important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.

Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause...God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause...Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario should not be taken too seriously.

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate their quantum vacuum is a lot of matter-antimatter potential not nothing..."
This course deals with modern quantum theory local causal and non-linear. This new theory is much more general quantum mechanics common because of the formal point of view, contains the usual theory as a particular case. Furthermore, it is shown how can you accept the existence of a reality independent of the observer and simultaneously explain the quantum world. All quantum experiments presented as mysterious and incomprehensible, transcending space and time are ultimately fully understood in causal terms intuitive and conceptual framework of this theory.

The Bohr-Sommerfeld model was fundamentally inconsistent and led to many paradoxes. The magnetic quantum number measured the tilt of the orbital plane relative to the xy-plane, and it could only take a few discrete values. This contradicted the obvious fact that an atom could be turned this way and that relative to the coordinates without restriction. The Sommerfeld quantization can be performed in different canonical coordinates, and sometimes gives answers which are different. The incorporation of radiation corrections was difficult, because it required finding action-angle coordinates for a combined radiation/atom system, which is difficult when the radiation is allowed to escape. The whole theory did not extend to non-integrable motions, which meant that many systems could not be treated even in principle. In the end, the model was replaced by the modern quantum mechanical treatment of the hydrogen atom, which was first given by Wolfgang Pauli in 1925, using Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. The current picture of the hydrogen atom is based on the atomic orbitals of wave mechanics which Erwin Schrödinger developed in 1926.

Von Baeyer highlights, then, the great irony: the two theories are completely opposite, because the relativity deals with the macrocosm and the other, the quantum, examines the microcosm. This opposition is certainly the biggest issue preventing the formulation of a convincing theory of super strength. Is that quantum theory and explains the mechanisms involved in both nuclear forces and electromagnetism, but does not apply to the force of gravity. Already, with relativity, the opposite occurs.

The theory of Peter Higgs and Phillip Anderson became key for the following: according to current classification, the universe consists of two classes of particles - fermions (half-integer spin, a sort of round in half), including electrons and the like, and bosons (integer spin), including photons. Bosons (which are named in honor of the Indian physicist Satyendra Bose Naths - 1564/1764 - from work on quantum mechanics with Einstein's theory of the so-called Bose-Einstein condensates) are responsible for systems where the states are always symmetrical; since the fermions are usually present in states not symmetrical.

A boson is a species of quanta, a linker, an associate, an invisible intermediary without which matter can not exist. Several bosons were discovered by physics, including the Z, the assumption to be the last. But Higgs and Anderson estimated that the start of the Big Bang, to the matter have begun to coalesce, we needed an initial link. A special boson - the primary glue or particle of God. Detect the existence of the Higgs boson, (the experience that has already been postponed several times and has been eagerly awaited for years), is like finding a piece of nothing that made the whole. You see the creation creating.

It is hoped that the experience, which will use the greatest research tool ever built, can also provide data on the theory of the Standard Model (which describes the behavior of all known particles except the graviton) and even the Grand Unification Theory, the Holy Grail of science, Einstein's last great intuition. Some physicists believe until he reached the zero point of time, you can identify the boundary between physical matter and supposed spiritual energies - or, as the French philosopher Jean Guitton, find out "why is there something instead of nothing."

The search for the "God particle" will be the temple of modern research: a scientific complex built since September 1954, at 100 meters above the ground on the outskirts of Geneva, Switzerland, near the border with France, originally planned for the use of 400 people from 12 countries and then going to house six thousand people from 84 countries, including Brazil. Here was discovered the Internet, hypertext, and took shape on the technical principles for the production of the entire structure of telecommunications and information technology of the modern era. It CERN, formerly known as the European Centre for Nuclear Research, and later renamed as the European Laboratory for Particle Physics. The great paradox is that while investigating particles with dimensions of one billionth of a thousandth of a millimeter (the fundamental constituents of matter in the vast universe) there is a need for the construction of gigantic structures.

The fantastic research tool that is used at CERN to try to identify the "God particle" and that will produce temperatures similar to those prevailing in the early universe is ready to spring into action after a colossal effort of assembly. This is the LHC (Large Hadron Collider - LHC), a powerful particle accelerator which has been adapted to operate in a circular structure 27 km of existing at CERN. In total, will be held five separate experiments.

The LHC, although colossal, is not the biggest project of device for particle collisions ever conceived. Ronald Reagan in the government, the United States left the community of theoretical physicists and astrophysicists in turmoil with the announcement of the construction of a huge particle accelerator. With the ability to produce energy never imagined the Superconducting Supercolisor - SSC, designed to be built in Texas, occupied a circular tunnel 85 kilometers in diameter. It was the hope of testing of all theories of physics. His goal was to provoke collisions between protons and antiprotons disassembling the matter until you reach the primordial cosmic soup appear where the Higgs boson. However, the legislature denied the necessary funds, played then by two other mega-projects: the Star Wars (to protect the U.S. with a missile shield) and the Genome. It is curious that most people in his books, discusses more SSC and almost no mention of the LHC at CERN.

But the U.S. has to its credit practices important confirmations of the existence of particles predicted by theories. In 1995, when they observed two quarks (two of a set of particles that make up protons, provided by Heell Murrasy Mann in 1963) and in 1977, when the detection of three particles (also only exist theoretically) similar conductors that transmits the force the weak nuclear force. The machine used at the time a particle collider has been installed in Batavian, Illinois.



According to science not at all! The bond between the two species and the evolutionary mega-loop (a miracle in science) was never found. The famous Lucy was nothing but a species of ape. The hands and the feet applied to her were not the actual feet or hands of the real Lucy.

The apes are distinguished from men in many anathomical characteristics by that that point of view Lucy was merely ape. Some apes have teeth like that of man: this doesn`t prove these apes are human, but does not prove that Lucy was a primitive form of human beeing.

Many species look alike, and yet they are different species: like goats and deers, a beaver and a squirrel (both have similar heads) etc.

Many species weere created, many more were extinct...just like dinossaurs, Lucy and others like her were possibly in that category.

Evolutionism takes small steps, small changes, some almost inperceptible sometimes and even genetic mutations only affect on aspect, one characteristic, not as many as those suggested by supposed «hominids».

Any evolution as such would have taken much , much more time.

According to scientists: yes. In that sense, yes apes could be relatives, but so are birds, so are plants: we all had a common origin, a creating force.

"...before everything existing I was..." Jesus said this that could be the key to modern scinece view of a creative force or energy independent of space and time, or between two or more time dimensions.
«...I Am the Alpha and the Omega..." according to science, time and space obey to the theory of relativity: for everything there is a cause. Quantum physics speeks of the actual possibility of vaccum, of nothing beeing able to generate something: by pure chance. To atheists this could be good news, but...there is a thing called «the Higgs» particle, or particle of God yet to be revealed...

Let us think for a while on every animal adaptation to his way of life: beavers have long teeth to cut wood to build their house, giraffes have long necks to get to the higher leafs of a tree. Evolution? could be, but before beavers get long teeth how did they lived? and why they would change their way of life if they are a recent species, unlike the crocodile that is a living dinossaur?

How chaotic would life on Earth be by this nothing generating life by chance...everything in life conects: if the sun, as every star dies, the plants die and with them all the life chain, and us too of course. So everything in nature is interdependant! we cannot conceive rain without evaporation, evaporation without the sun heat etc!

The relativity theory cannot sustain with the Bohr`s quantum physics chaos because as Jesus would say: " reign divided against himself can reign ..."

Nature obeys to a basic principle of economy, which is why animals that live in the dark are blind: they do not need eyes. So why would nature create things by chance without dependence just creating not beauty or order, but chaos.


(And it is surprising for those who use science as an excuse to deny god with arrogance) The last is about Einstein onde of the most high I.Q. that lived! his brain was given to science for study.

Science have been asking the wrong question? the question "How?" but forgetting the word: "Why?" , when that happens we can get to God? possibly...