Archives

ARCHIVES CONTENTS

Pre-note

As I write this note, February 15, 2015, I am paused, trying to think of the right words to describe my purpose in developing this website...it is to present in everyday language, insofar as I can, basic fundamental truth that all people should understand and embrace. A compelling goal is to present it in a manner understandable by high school students. A necessary part of the presentation is debunking fundamental error that is widely presented as truth by some very intelligent people who have abandoned intelligence in favor of fantasy. I am currently in my 75th year. What you will read, if you continue (I hope you will.), is in essence the story of how I arrived at the primary truth I present. (To whom it may concern: Along the way I was valedictorian of my high school senior class, elected most intellectual and most likely to succeed. In college I was inducted into an electrical engineering honorary society, Eta Kappa Nu. Post graduate I earned a Master of Divinity seminary degree and later a professional engineering license. In 1966, as part of my seminary entrance requirements, I had to take the California Mental Capacity test upon which I scored 145. All that was done long ago. Nonetheless, I can still write sentences, drive, find my way home and even use my iPhone. I will seek counsel as to whether I should include this parenthetical statement.) I am not a scientist. But my profession of electrical engineering has been in applied science. My education and experience qualifies me to study and evaluate the work of scientists.

Challenge to Skeptics
A Case for Intelligent Design from the words of Richard Dawkins and others
This Christian's Perspective links to an essay written years earlier (in 2000) containing abundant evidence for knowing.
Advocating pure science
Final message
Understanding God's proposal to humans links to a series of "Yes" or "No" questions and comments which lead to understanding God's proposal.

Introduction

"There may or may not be a God. Or gods." (Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, First Mariner Books edition 2007, Copyright © 2006 by Spin Networks, Ltd). I include the quote here because it is the beginning of Smolin's book about physics. I find it quite interesting that Smolin injects this subject at the very beginning of the introduction to his book...but he never addresses the subject again in the remaining pages of the book, nearly 400. This website, on the other hand, starts with the quotation and deals with some profound implications of its subject.

Although I did not know it at the time, development of this website began and evolved from the year I was born,1940, long before websites existed. My original website was written and published in 2000 and has been renamed, expanded and edited multiple times and evolved to the site you are now visiting. It explains where I am in life and how I arrived. It was (is being) developed from my perspective as a licensed professional electrical engineer and having a Master of Divinity degree. In case you are unaware, a licensed professional engineer is engineering's counterpart to MD in the medical field. Perhaps my education and experience will offer some thoughts that have not occurred to you before.

Without further indicators, my engineering education and experience have thoroughly convinced me that writers like Richard Dawkins and Michael Ruse have insulted their own intelligence. I predict they will confirm this by shunning the million dollars described in Challenge to Skeptics.

Because of semantics (words mean different things to different people) I am compelled to present a few of definitions, i.e., the meanings I attribute to the words. Knowledge: an awareness and understanding of truth or a truth. Truth: anything that is correct, not false...from a single thought to a philosophy or world view...which might be partially or wholly true. Our perception of truth is expressed, in thought or speech or writing, by words and sentences. Let me pause for a moment and say a true statement about truth. Absolute truth does exist. If something is altogether, without exception, completely, totally true, it has to be absolutely true. Humanity, like it or not, cannot avoid absolute truth. Humanity often tries to avoid it. But it remains anyway. Objective: agreed upon by all sane people. Subjective: not agreed upon by all sane people. I will not attempt to define "sane". It is one example of innumerable subjective words.

Perhaps you noticed I used the word "evolved" twice in the first paragraph. The word is not evil. This website addresses supposed conflicts between science and religion. It asserts there can be no conflict between pure science and and true religion.

An example "could be" the coloration of butterflies, and the multiplicity of sizes and shapes of butterflies. God could have set limiting parameters and equations for each and then turned random chance loose within the parameters to see what the results would be (I suggest this possibility based upon a patent I received in 1982, patent #.) He could have picked the resulting "designs" he liked, kept them, and trashed the rest. Perhaps he enjoyed watching what chance would do. Not only with butterflies, but with fish, and birds, etc. That sort of thing is done in modern designs these days. If we can do it today, he certainly could have, long ago...perhaps what appears today (to physicists and astronomers) to have been 15 billion years ago was actually 6000 years ago, by modern standards of measuring time. The 15 billion years, claimed by physicists and astronomers, assumes that physical events that define time have always taken place at the rate they happen today.

But that is a huge assumption. It easy to define mathematical factors that approach infinity at time zero and as time passes to settle to one, unity, within six days, see the challenge to skeptics. How many such factors might there be in the natural equations discovered by scientists? It could be any unknown number. The events that appear to have taken 15 billion years by modern time-keeping could have been stuffed in the six days of Genesis, just 6000 years ago. Someone could claim centrifugal force would disallow that. But that assumes the force of gravity has never changed. (Etc.) Perhaps God was anxious to get the busy work done so he could get to his main goal, which was to create man, according to the Bible. This sounds absurd to a naturalist. But to one who accepts the reality of the supernatural it is no problem. But naturalists ignore the supernatural assuming it is fantasy. However, the natural could be only a small part of reality. Science cannot say otherwise. There is room for a lot of time in the first verse of Genesis. And there is the inflationary big bang theory espoused by physicists. There is a lot of room in the unknown.

For "naturalists" and "creationists" there is abundant room for each to say "I don't know". On the other hand, there is room for each to say (or claim) "I know...". This website looks at the conflict and presents reasons to conclude that creationism is the correct choice.