Intelligent Design

December 9, 2014: I’m adding on to an older blog, from Feb 2014, this is from a Ravi Zacharias podcast, and it’s not word for word, but it’s certainly the gist. But first this is from another blog about the man who first wrote about the Big Bang theory: “According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. This startling idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. The theory, accepted by nearly all astronomers today, was a radical departure from scientific orthodoxy in the 1930s. Many astronomers at the time were still uncomfortable with the idea that the universe is expanding. That the entire observable universe of galaxies began with a bang seemed preposterous.” (This is an excerpt from COSMIC HORIZONS: ASTRONOMY AT THE CUTTING EDGE, edited by Steven Soter and Neil deGrasse Tyson, a publication of the New Press. © 2000 American Museum of Natural History. To order the book, call 1-800-233-4830, or go to

I can’t find the exact quote, but Father Lemaitre is supposed to have said something to the effect that if God the Father chose to create the universe in one huge, lightning fast bang, one brilliant flash then so be it. But to put secularists on notice that when it comes to science, Christians have almost always led the way and it’s usually secularists that have to adapt. Heck in  medieval times, secularists were still messing with alchemy and astrology, studies the church roundly condemned. People in the church were actually studying astronomy, Galileo and the Pope aside.

Anyway, to emphasize the exactness of the Big Bang, and how it simply could not have had natural causes, science continues to realize what an incredibly precise process creation was and how it just could not have been accidental. One thing that I always remember is that there had to be an incredibly precise amount of hydrogen to form the universe. Too much and it would have just blown to pieces, too little and it would just pop like a dud firecracker. Ravi Zacharias quotes John Lenox, points out that “…32 different contingencies were so finely tuned, [for example the amount of hydrogen and the forces that impact expansion and contraction] the early pico – seconds of the universe had to be so exact and the margin of error so small, that it would be like taking aim at a one square inch object at the other end of the known universe 20 billion light years away and hitting it bullseye. That’s just one contingency [out of 32], expansion and contraction, just a minuscule difference and we would not be here…”

A “pico-second” is described as an atom sized element would take, travelling at the speed of light, to cross a single strand of hair. We are talking all of these vitally important processes happening in a coordinated manner, in a flash of time in order to create the universe the way it had to be created. Considerations such as gravity, gases, elements, on and on had to have happened so instantly and exactly that to say it was coincidence is to deny any kind of real science. That is frankly what the secular world seems to be trying to do and there is no logical rationale other than it was put there and initiated by an infinite, transcendent, omnipotent God.

The following from here is a post from February 2014, and is more discussion on the exactitude of God’s creation and how it just could not have come together by accident:


Hi, great of you to visit, I do really appreciate anyone who takes the time to read my albeit, slightly longer than most blogs. I will make you a deal on this one, you hear me out and try to lose the preconceived notions, try to push down the urge to label me some fanatic fundamentalist and I will leave my usual embroidery and “attitude”. Deal? Love ya man, now let’s talk some real turkey here.

If you blindly accept the current orthodoxy (oops sorry, attitude already), anyway more and more science is seeing more “design” in the universe and earth is a good starting point for us. I do want to point out that this material has been very nicely organized by “Answers Magazine” the Jan-Mar 2014 pp 62-  .

One thing that the current orthodoxy likes to get so righteously indignant about is “how could anyone think in this whole big universe that the earth is completely unique.” I just submit this for your consideration (nod to Rod Serling), maybe just maybe, God did make one planet in the universe and put those He made in His image on that planet (sorry Gene Roddenberry). I know, a little over the top, but when you get an appreciation of all the intricacy of how complicated our environment is and how fragile we human beings are, that the idea that this could have all come together by coincidence and blind chance is so extraordinarily nonsensical that no one who even has a smidgen of scientific knowledge could believe the current orthodoxy.

OK, I’ve made my opening statement so now “just the facts” (thanks Joe Friday).

We humans are very fragile, we have a very limited temperature range we can live in, we can stand very little in terms of radiation, we can use only very particular water and we need a lot of it, but then not too much, we need oxygen, but we really can’t use pure oxygen which is actually rather dangerous. I could go on and on, but I like this summary statement from “Answers”: “When you look at the minimum requirements – a cozy orbit, a stable star a stabilizing moon and a protective atmosphere – only one planet fits the bill. Earth.” (p 62)

As you probably know activity has ramped up significantly in the last decade for the search for exoplanets, that is planets outside of our solar system: “In 2009 NASA launched the Kepler telescope … to monitor over 145,000 stars for evidence of orbiting planets. The results are astounding over 3,500 candidates were identified…” That is only 2.5%. 145,000 is a tiny, really microscopic sample, but a result of 2.5% is really almost incidental, that any of that 3,500 supports life would be against odds that are staggering.

“…notice how low the bar is set. Secular astronomers aren’t actually looking for life itself, but the places where life could theoretically survive. Even that bare minimum – the right conditions for liquid water – has proven very hard to find.” (p 63)

Danny Faulkner wrote these series of articles (Dr Faulkner was a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of South Carolina for over 26 years). Dr Faulkner notes that astronomers have already labeled a new “science” exobiology and have already had papers and conferences on the “subject”. Talk about faith! They’ve already established a “science” about a subject that there is not a scintilla of evidence that the subject even exists!? (I’ve always said that I simply cannot have the kind of faith atheists have, I believe in an all-powerful God who created everything. Atheists believe that everything came together in just the right circumstances, and life was created completely out of nothing and totally by chance.)

OK, just going to stick to the facts, here goes:

Scientists have identified a “habitable” zone, in other words a planet can’t be too close or too far away from its sun. If it’s too close it’s simply too hot and can’t support liquid water. Too far and water will be frozen, not too mention it will simply be too cold or hot for living beings.

A planet has to be the right mass in order to hold the right atmosphere and have ample liquid water.

It has to be the right composition for example enough iron, the planet has to have exactly the right composition of minerals and gravitational effect.

It has to have a stable orbit, most exoplanets have a very elliptical orbit, meaning at some point in its orbit it comes to close to the sun, at others it is too far from the sun. Many of these planets don’t rotate properly, half the planet will freeze and the other half will be too hot.

The suns these planets orbit are “variable”, our sun is very stable, it emits just the right amount of heat and radiation. A variable star will not continuously emit a sufficient amount of heat to support life. One aspect Dr Faulkner points to is that our sun has far less lithium then most stars. In addition the sun is much more stable in terms of its magnetic field which is related to sun spots. Sun spots could conceivably emit far more radiation which if too much could wipe out life on earth. The earth’s magnetic filed is also very unique and protects us from normal and even slightly excessive radiation from the sun, but the sun’s stability has been sufficient to keep it from excessive emissions.

The earth’s moon is very unique in this solar system and also contributes to the orderliness of our earthly environment. There is no evidence of any other earth/moon that is better matched. The size of the moon to the earth is very unique, the moon is substantially larger to its planet than any other planet/satellites. The gravitational force of the moon prevents an axial tilt of the earth. The keeps the earth from kind of flip flopping, which could be up to 90 degrees. A ninety degree tilt could put the Arctic at an angle where the equator is, that is it would go from being frozen, to tropical temperatures and of course have a devastating effect on the rest of the earth’s environment. Because of the moon’s effect it stabilizes the earth tilt to only two degrees. “The size and orbit of the moon are also ideal for producing tides on the earth. The daily fluctuation of the tides helps cleanse the shores of the ocean, and they play a vital role in the lives of many sea creatures.” (p 68)

This final article gets a little detailed, so I am going to quote a little more.

“You might thing that a pure oxygen atmosphere would be better (you know how many people think that the earth’s atmosphere is pure oxygen! – sorry mine) than just 21% since that is the only gas our bodies utilize when we breath. However, a pure or nearly pure oxygen atmosphere would be disastrous. Not only would fires quickly rage out of control but experiments have shown that the cells of living organisms would be damaged if exposed to excessive oxygen for a long time…

…the bulk of the atmosphere consists of nitrogen (78%) and the remaining 1% is a mixture of trace materials….

Nitrogen is in a diatomic form meaning that each molecule of nitrogen is made of two tightly bound  atoms of nitrogen … Diatomic nitrogen is chemically inert, which means that it rarely interacts with anything. So the majority of the earth’s atmosphere doesn’t do anything except provide bulk and take up space. This is ideal, because it provides the proper amount of air pressure to support life without interfering with basic life processes…

The oxygen is diatomic as well.. Together, more than 99% of the earth’s atmosphere is diatomic and that’s also a good thing. Other types of gases contribute to the greenhouse effect. Too much of them would turn our planet into an unbearable hothouse.

No other known planets have atmospheres that are diatomic…… The earth’s atmosphere is very different from any other planet’s . The small amoutn of polyatomic gas produces just enough greenhouse effect to keep the temperatures from getting too cold at night, as heat escapes. It also blocks much of the infrared radiation coming from the sun, preventing the earth from heating up too quickly during the day. If the earth didn’t have any polyatomic gases, then the temperature would fluctuate well over 100 degrees F every day.” (pp 70 – 71)

There is more, there is so much more. There is just so much that is unique to this planet, so much that makes it more and more justifiable to say that this planet was uniquely created by God who made it so that we could not only live, but for many of us, to live lives of remarkable comfort and plenty. This may not be enough to convince you that there is a God and He created us and our environment, but keep an open mind and pay attention as scientists continue to draw the facts together and show what an amazingly creative and caring God we have.