What's true? The Real Facts About...


October 13, 2016 in Religion


Why did Nobel Laureate WERNER HEISENBERG, say, “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will create an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass GOD IS WAITING FOR YOU”?

Because, with the basic information we are all taught about evolution, adaptation, antibiotic resistance, over a hundred years of believing that a living cell was no more than a simple “bag of cytoplasm”, etc… Whether intended or not (I think it’s intentional), this limited teaching provides an atheistically biased view of the natural world.. This bias has converted and continues to convert hundreds of millions of the world’s Christians to atheistic beliefs.   But for those who are willing to look deeper, for those who continue down the road of knowledge and discovery, what they find, deals the certainty of atheism a death blow…  and that is the overarching purpose of this and other science of religionarticles; to provide the scientific tools to protect and support Religious faith.  

There is an old saying A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. In today’s world, it’s a simple, unfortunate fact that the vast majority of society is now afflicted with either “little knowledge” or “an overabundance of outdated knowledge”. Consequently, even though, current information is available, society continues to be taught “outdated  facts” that persist in undercutting Christianity…  even though, as will be shown, many of those “facts” are provably wrong.

When considering the accumulated knowledge of the past few decades in all scientific fields, the only way to abjectly refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of God is by remaining purposefully uninformed or to by simply refusing to acknowledge the inescapable inferences and reasonable conclusions to which they lead.   Let me be clear… God can scientifically neither be proven nor disproven.  However, it can be shown that many scientific teachings that, for over a century were and still are used to undercut belief in God, are probable wrong and many others, very questionable… That is the purpose of this and other “science of religion” articles.   

We make our case, not by providing the thoughts and opinions of hundreds of biased theologians, but rather direct quotes of agnostic and even anti religion, atheistic worldwide scientists, researchers and Nobel laureates from many fields.  Their recent discoveries in biology, zoology, physics, astronomy archaeology, and more are simply changing our views of the universe!   

Over my years of many debates in various forums I’ve found that countless individuals prefer to bury their heads in the sand, rather than learn uncomfortable truths.  That is everyone’s right, but what follows is meant for those who prefer truth and knowledge over outdated dogma.  As to any of information we present, if something is unclear, or simply not believed, please feel free to comment and tell us why. I promise, we’ll get back to you.
Even better, if anything here can actually shown to be shown to be wrong, please, let us know… we will change it. Our goal is not to when an argument or proselytize, or goal is truth.

I WAS AN ATHEIST-  Science had turned me into an atheist; but a curious one.  As I learned more, the more it became apparent, there was a problem.   As science has progressed, not only haD it found many answers to deep and vexing questions, but many of the new answers had obvious Theistic implications.  The science made it clear that the teachings that seemed to so completely support an atheistic worldview were simply wrong.  Amazinglythis mountain of new and exciting knowledge, does not seem to make its way into our children’s middle schools or even high school text books.  Consequently, these destructive Half Truths, continue to be taught and undermine faith.



The manner in which Darwinism has been taught was as a hammer to destroy believe in God.  Many simply assert, with no logical argument that Darwinism/Evolution is simply true; Case CLOSED!  However, anyone looking at the issue logically and honestly for even a moment will see that statement has many issues as we will discuss.

FIRST- Not even the most ardent Theist argues that life does not change over time.  Everyone acknowledges that life adapts and changes.  Even many brilliant Theists agree with the full concept of “common descent” that we all descended from an original cell.  The issue has never been DOES CHANGE OCCUR?   The question is what is the mechanism that causes the changes?   It’s either random chance or purpose.  If purpose, whose purpose?  Can these changes really solely the result of *wholly undirected, chance variations based on nothing other the accumulation of randomly mutated genes?*.  As discussed later, current science indicates, no. So, is the atheistic Neo Darwinism the whole story?

And for those who do not agree with evolution, i.e. from cell to man, what they want to see is evidence of a mechanism sufficient to job.  As will be shown below, with the advent of the last 20 years of research and accumulated knowledge, it is now believed by a large and growing number of top researchers, that the darwinian mechanism simply is not.   Many go further saying: Darwinism was right about many things, including small adaptions, skin color, hair length, eye color, etc… but as a mechanism for common descent, it is wrong.

Throughout our lives, we’ve all been taught “facts” that effectively disproved the possibility of God.  We now know that many of those Religion destroying facts were absolutely WRONG!  This article will discuss a number of them.


*If religion destroying facts are proven wrong, is that the same as proving that God exists?*  No, but it removes many of the road blocks that have prevented many from coming to God… and more to the point, helps keep believers from being drawn away from God.  I started as a Christian, then science showed me that God DID NOT exist… but I kept studying…    See how science created an Atheist, then built a Christian!



There are now many of our most brilliant chemists, biologists, paleontologists who, even though, still theists, now, insist that Neo Darwinism is wrong.


*For years, the Evolution Paradigm was in trouble*

_In 2009, Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information_ stated in Trends in Genetics that due to breakdowns in core neo-Darwinian tenets such the “traditional concept of the tree of life” or the view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution” indicate that “*the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair*” and “all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.

 I could write a book on the subject but the few links below, should make the point.  For anyone who actually cares about facts, please take a few moments to examine the following links and videos.  This post is not to convert anyone to Christianity, only to inform those who care about facts

SEE Hundreds of scientists including _Nobel laureates_ who disagree with neo Darwinism.  http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people  see specifically the 6 and 28 minute mark.



Top World Chemist doesn’t understand “evolution” https://youtu.be/_TAUw4pvbug  




The RNA world hypothesis for YEARS was considered the _best_ option for a the  naturalistic cause of life from random combinations of chemicals and amino acids.  But _it is now widely believed to have never *even* existed_.

See *Nobel laureate Sidney Altman at 49 minute mark*.  https://youtu.be/IhQcK4PsStk

Additionally, the cell is not the simple blob of protoplasm as was believed when Darwin’s theory came on the scene.  We now know it is impossibly complex and its DNA is comprised of much more than complexity but of specific information/instructions the equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedia Britannica’s.  This doesn’t prove God, but the question of “from where did the information arise” poses what appear to be insurmountable naturalistic issues.  See… http://allsolutionsnetwork.org/blog/the-origin-of-life-who-wrote-the-manual  

*Was it actually chance?*
That the first living cell came about by random chance is, literally, less likely than taking 10 million die, casting them into the air and having each of them land as number one.
 (Virtually no one any longer believes in random chance)  Again, see Eugene Koonin.  http://www.biologydirect.com/content/2/1/15  
The fact is that each cell, via DNA, contains the precise equivalent of a highly advance computer code (computer codes don’t build themselves) *and* INSTRUCTION MANUALS for the building of proteins that are then instructed to create biological machines and cellular manufacturing plants, complete with transport systems, self assembling and dissembling internal highways, power plants, defense mechanisms, virtual laborers *In short each cell contains feats of engineering that are 100’s of times more complex and sophisticated than anything built by GM*.
So, contrary to naturalistic assertions, getting amino acids naturally does not come close to solving the problem of the origin of life. 

*The REAL question is how, who or what ASSEMBLED the amino acids into functional proteins?*
To anyone who reads this, I’m not keeping my religion out of it.  This is not about God.  I’m factually presenting the facts of a naturalistic dilemma that so far has no reasonable solution; only a huge mountain of conjecture and wishful thinking.  The fact is, our brightest materialistic minds are ALL stumped.

The origin of life*, the emergence of the first living cell is at an absolute dead end.  Yes, there is still plenty of conjecture within the scientific community, but the fact is that EVERY naturalistic account has hit a brick wall, with no doorway apparent… see http://allsolutionsnetwork.org/blog/the-origin-of-life-who-wrote-the-manual

 In fact, one of our *leading origins of life researchers Eugene Koonin*, (a materialist) has now concluded.

“Biological evolution *cannot* take off before there are polymers (most likely, *RNA* molecules) and means for their sustainable replication.”  _*without sustainable replication, there is no life*_

“… In particular, the emergence of a coupled replication-translation system (the first living cell), is unlikely, to the extent of being, *EFFECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE*.   For such a complex system to be a _viable candidate_ for the breakthrough stage, an *infinite multiiverse* , such as the one depicted by MWO or, in the very least, a universe with a vast number of O-regions, i.e. _10 to the power of 500 universes_ is, indeed, a must.

*In other words, in his opinion abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non living matter) is impossible unless there is a multi verse*.

  Essentially, his opinion is that a naturalistic cause of origin of life is *impossible* unless we posit that we live in a many worlds universe, and that we just happen to be lucky enough to exist in a universe, in which, the impossible can happen.   (Maybe this is also the one in which God can exist?)  

  *The problem, however, is that there is ZERO empirical evidence of a multi verse*; although, to be sure there is much conjecture and several theories re multiverses…  

What Koonin does is to preserve his FAITH in a naturalistic cause for Life’s origins, by assuming the existence of a hypothesis that is totally bereft of even one shred of verifiable evidence.  In other words, he depends on an unfounded hypothesis to sustain his certainty in the existence of what even he says empirical evidence pronounces as impossible!

 *That is the problem with worldviews.  It is easy to ignore or even create interpretations of contrary facts in order to support a preferred paradigm… even if all empirical evidence is against them!.  Is that really rational?  No, but it happens all the time.  http://allsolutionsnetwork.org/blog/the-problem-with-worldviews-are-you-trapped

See also “Atheism opiate of the masses”  http://wp.me/p2EGlL-6kI

*Then came the GENOME project and it Gets WORSE*

For about the past 20 years, it was apparent that something was dreadfully wrong with the Neo Darwin paradigm, literally right to the core.   *The concept of Junk DNA had become a core tenet of the Paradigm and was used as continuing proof of the randomness of life, therefore, no need for intelligence or God.*

However, Junk DNA is now shown not to be JUNK!  This surprising result was so destructive to atheism’s most powerful tool for destroying Theism that in the *Journal “Nature”* University of Houston’s Dan Graur, a vehement opponent of intelligent design stated, *”if encode is right, evolution is wrong!”*

Guess What?  Encode is Right. *We will soon be posting more about the genome project and what Junk DNA really is.  But for now, understand, the more we learn, the more it appears the naturalistic paradigm is WRONG!*  

*Nobel Laureate Sidney Altman*, Professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at now agrees with  ENCODE most DNA _is not Junk_.  In fact this Nobel Laureate said there is no Junk DNA, to speak of.  see Yale University  https://youtu.be/IhQcK4PsStk 

As was stated by Steve Laufmann,
Evolution’s grand challenge: The complex programs and amazing molecular machines at the heart of life simply cannot be explained by any current or proposed theory of evolution, nor by any other completely material cause.

Rarely has any field of science had to deal with questions so difficult, or that cut so deeply into the worldviews, minds, and hearts, of thoughtful men and women.

Evolution sits at the center of a front-and-center debate — with too much to explain, in too little time, with insufficient causal power, and with so many watching and so much at stake.



*Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness* – May 27, 2015  Cosmic Consciousness?  Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory _has survived another test_, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that *_reality does not exist until it is measured i.e. has an observer_*.  So, who is the Observer?

*This conundrum is similar to the _who created the creator_*  Quantum physics now infers the existence of a “Prime ObserverWho or what is this ultimate observer of those things which cannot be observed? i.e. photons, atoms, etc… 

Just as we know there is a first cause (even if we can’t prove who or what it is), there now appears to be a first and ultimate observer.  http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html




also see…



FINE TUNING AND WORLD VIEW  https://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0

The incredible fine tuning of the universe has been problematic to naturalism from the moment it became apparent.  For those unfamiliar with fine tuning, it is the fact that even slight alterations in any of the settings for gravity, strong force, weak force, dark energy, etc… had to be set EXACTLY as they are.  Even the slightest variations would cause changes to the architecture of the universe such that life and even chemistry or matter as we know it would cease to exist. This is a fact, not conjecture.

As a matter of fact, it was Lawrence Krauss, chairman of the physics and astronomy department at Case Western Reserve University who said that dark energy would involve the most extreme fine tuning problem known in physics, because you would have to fine tune the dark energy parameter so very closely in order to get the universe to expand at the just right rate. In fact, for physical life to be possible, it has to be fine-tuned to within one part in 10122. That’s 122 zeros after the one.

AND the answer is NO, to anyone inclined to argue against fine tuning as posing an issue to atheism.  Some assert that we have but one universe to study, so we can’t know it’s fine tuned… or that it might not even be possible that the “dials” could have been set in any other way.  Neither, even remotely obviates the FACT of the fine tuning.    Additionally, there is nothing in nature that indicates that any of these “dials” had to be set as they are.   

IN FACT, SIR FREDERICK HOYLE, who was the first to realize that all chemical elements are created inside stars by nucleosynthesis, made this startling comment, “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (1982:)

Contrary to what one might assume based on this statement; he remained an ATHEIST until his death in 2001. 

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” 

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”.

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”

Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly.”

Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is “one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.” That is “a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.”

Steven Weinberg, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, and an anti-religious agnostic, admits that “the existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places. This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000­0000000000, but instead: 1000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe.”


The argument is not over the “facts” the argument is over what the analysis of those facts mean. On this point the most brilliant of our scientist see the very same information but disagree on the meanings.  How can the same facts be examined by our most brilliant scientists but come to diametrically opposed conclusions?  Obviously, the issue has nothing to do with intelligence… the issue is their commitment to world view.   See How Worldview Often Kills Discovery. 



The often made assertion that those who believe in God are lacking in intellect is itself a provably absurd proposition, but it is made all the time!  It is demonstrably untrue that the intelligent are atheists and ignorant Theists.  MANY EXAMPLES:

John Hulley, a former senior economist with the World Bank in Washington, D.C., made an analysis and found that 86% of Nobel Science prizes from 1901 through 1990 have been won by Jews and Protestants.  These religious nobel laureates, probably weren’t morons, nor were those with atheistic leanings. 

CHARLES TOWNES, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

­“I strongly believe in the existence of God, based on intuition, observations, logic, and also scientific knowledge.” (Townes 2002a).

ROBERT MILLIKAN, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.”

ERWIN SCHRÖDINGER, Nobel Laureate in Physics:

“…God and eternity, Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.”

¨ In the presentation of a scientific problem, the other player is the good Lord. He has not only set the problem but also has devised the rules of the game”

 MAX PLANCK, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God…  God represents the basis, for the latter – the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.”

Apologists for materialism cannot hide these facts much longer. Neither the volume of their arguments nor any level of vitriol can change the fact that the empirical data is skewing against them.
*None of the above FACTS or OPINIONS PROVE that God exists… _ but for any objective mind, they can not help but strongly infer that there is, a powerful something that is similar to what we all God.  

The most recent scientific discoveries have put the materialistic view of reality, down for the count.

The Truth About Religion

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.