Author’s Blog

How True is the Bible’s Account of Creation?

Since we’ve talked about how science describes creation, isn’t it only fair to see what the Bible says about it? The Bible describes how God created the universe and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh day. The New Revised Standard Version says, “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” This description means that God created the heavens first and then the earth. In other words, God created the universe first. Afterwards, He created light for day and dark for night. That was the first day.

In the second day, God made the sky by separating the dome or sky from the waters. Subsequently, God created land that He called Earth and the waters He called Seas. He created vegetation including plants and fruit trees. This was the third day. On the fourth day, God created the sun and the moon, according to the Bible. The fifth day was a big day during which God created sea creatures of all kinds as well as birds over the land. Then God created all kinds of animals, like cattle plus many kinds of insects and wild animals on the sixth day. Finally, on the sixth day, God created human beings. On the seventh day, God rested.

In this description, it is important to notice that the Bible does not describe specifically all the sea creatures, birds, insects, or animals that God created. It is not the purpose of the Bible to describe all those life forms in detail. The Bible offers a general description or an outline of what God did. My theory is that the Bible describes what I just wrote–an outline of what God did. It differs from science that describes specifically what happened. That’s one reason why I suggest that the Bible and science say the same thing–just in different terms. They offer two different perspectives of the same thing.

Another reason why I suggest that is true is my realization as a boy that God “created” the Bible–albeit, inspired humankind to write what He wanted them to write–and also created science. If God created both the Bible and science, then it is reasonable to believe that both say the same thing because God cannot–and will not–tell a lie. Some people may doubt that God inspired anybody to write anything. From my experience in writing this book, I have to say that I know from first-hand experience how God inspired me to write my book. I would write a chapter or section and leave it for a day or two. Then when I came back to it, the thought came to me that I needed to say this or that. Where did that thought come from? From my own mind that is so brilliant that I didn’t think of it the first time? Or because God nudged me to add that to my book. In the same fashion, God inspired the writers of the Bible, I’m convinced, and it happened to me in the same way over and over again.

How does a builder build a house or any building? First, the builder typically develops a plan for what he wants to build and the equipment and materials he plans to use to accomplish the plan. Then he gathers the equipment and materials for the building. Next, he builds the foundation of the house and later the walls and the rest of the building as he envisions it. Jesus talked about a builder building a solid foundation as he begins to build a house. Is it unreasonable or outlandish to think that before creation, God developed a plan how He wanted the create the universe, the galaxies, and the planets? Is it unthinkable that God had a plan to create sea creatures, vegetation, cattle, insects, various animals, and human beings? The steps described in Genesis indicate clear, deliberate steps in the process of creation. For example, God created the land before He created the vegetation and animals. As another example, God created animals like cattle before He created humans. In other words, He took logical steps in logical order. That seems pretty clear.

In summary, it appears that God and science say the same thing in different words. Since God created both the Bible and science, that seems like the only valid conclusion. The Bible presents more of an outline of the steps of creation while science focuses on the actual steps. However, we need to remember that science is evolving as our knowledge increases. So even though science may proclaim something true today, tomorrow it may change what it says is true. So while the Bible may be true in general terms, we need to be more careful about the accuracy of science and how it changes with new knowledge.

So what do you think about creation? What is true? What do you think about science changes over time? It would be great to hear from you if you choose to share your thoughts at When we share our knowledge, we all grow and develop.

Does the Big Bang Theory Explain Adequately the Origins of the Universe?

As Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies and others suggest, most scientists seem to believe the universe began with the Big Bang. That means the universe began as a very high-density and high-temperature state that subsequently expanded to the point where it is now.

Supposedly, after the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles and then atoms. The stars and galaxies formed later. Scientists suggest that the expansion of the universe is accelerating in more recent times. Apparently measurements of the expansion rate of the universe motivated scientists to estimate the occurrence of the Big Bang at roughly 13.8 billion years ago and thus gives us the approximate age of the universe. They claim that the known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate aspects of the universe in detail back in time to the initial state of extreme density and temperature, or in other words, back to creation.

To explain the beginnings of life, Paul Davies described three principle theories. Before presenting the three theories, Davies exclaims, “To be sure, we have a good idea of the where and the when of life’s origin, but we are a very long way from comprehending the how.” The first theory to explain the beginning of life is the chemical self-assembly in a watery medium somewhere on the earth. Second, he mentions viable microbes traveled to earth from space and in particular from Mars. Third, the idea suggests that life began deeply inside the earth. Most of the development of life occurred in the last billion years, says Davies. Do any of these theories really explain the beginning of life? How did the beginning activity start? Who or what started that activity? Those questions seem to remain unanswered. So, if the activities are not described or explained clearly and if the questions are not answered, how can they actually explain anything? Let alone, reality.

Repeatedly in his books, Davies makes comments, such as “Life is not haphazard complexity, it is organized.” If life is organized, how is it organized and who or what makes it organized?

Davies admits that some “science” is not really actual experiments to find the truth, “So far most of the ‘experiments’ have been computer simulations rather than the real thing [i.e. actual experiments].” Computer simulations have significant limitations. If the simulation is not comprehensive enough, it can lead to inaccurate, if not, wrong conclusions. It is wise to remember ANY little flaw in the computer program can produce false results. The old saying about computers remains valid: “Garbage in, garbage out.” How do scientists know absolutely that those computer programs do not contain flaws in the program? Of course, they don’t know. And can’t prove it either.

Recently, I saw some writings that now deny the Big Bang theory as the truth. This opens the question of creation among scientists to explore anew. If the scientists cannot explain the “how” of life’s origin, as Paul Davies says, how can that theory be accurate or even adequate?

What do you think? Can we rely on the Big Bang theory? Or is it doubtful? It would be great to hear from you at my email address Let me know what you think. By sharing ideas we can learn and grow together.

How Do the Scientific Method and Laws of Science Offer Proof of God’s Existence?

It is known that a scientific law is a concise statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle such as Newton’s law of gravity. What eventually becomes a scientific law begins as a theory or a basic idea or proposal based on a set of observations made by a scientist. The process that follows to prove its validity is called the Scientific Method.

In his well-known book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking describes two criteria that a theory must satisfy to be a “good theory” or a scientific law. Hawking says, “It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.” In other words, a scientist observes certain things happening and postulates that those things will continue to happen if those criteria occur again.

Hawking cites that Aristotle believed Empedocles’ theory that everything was made out of four elements which were earth, air, fire, and water. While the idea was simple, Hawking points out that it failed to offer any “definite” predictions. In contrast, Newton proposed his theory of gravity in a simpler model, but it predicts the motions of the sun, the moon, and the planets “to a high degree of accuracy.” Hawking points out that “…You can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.” So, that means that as long as new experiments repeatedly agree with the predictions, the theory “survives,” but whenever a new observation is found to disagree, “we have to abandon or modify the theory,” says Hawking.

Hawking proclaims, “The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner but that they reflect a certain underlying order…” Over time humankind has learned so much about the various areas of science such as chemistry and physics. We find numerous laws that have been discovered over a long time. Examples of commonly-known laws in chemistry are Avogadro’s Law, Boyle’s Law, Charles’ Law, Faraday’s Law, and the First Law of Thermodynamics. Examples of commonly known laws in physics are Coulomb’s Law, Newton’s Law of motion, Ohm’s Law, Einstein’s mass-energy equation, Gauss’ Law, and Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

These laws show how organized science is and how they reflect a “certain underlying order” as opposed to showing arbitrary development of science. These laws exist and must be reckoned with by scientists in their studies, observations, experiments, and judgments. More than that, these laws govern our lives as ordinary people.

These laws and the scientific method to confirm them demonstrate how orderly our environment is. They also disprove any arbitrariness that must exist if all these things happened because life and existence developed because of it happening by accident or by random. Accidents and randomness do not result in orderliness. But rather chaos. Does that make sense?

If you have any comments or thoughts, it would be great to hear from you. Please write me at By sharing our thoughts and ideas, we all grow and learn.

How Does Chemistry Provide Evidence to Our Question?

We now examine chemistry to find out what evidence it can provide to answer our basic question about the existence of God. Chemistry studies properties, structures, and reactions of matter that focus on the atomic scale. Wikipedia defines chemistry as, “the scientific discipline involved with compounds composed of atoms, i.e. elements and molecules i.e. combinations of atoms: their composition, structure, properties, behavior and the changes they undergo during a reaction with other compounds.” Traditional chemistry studies elementary particles, atoms, molecules, substances, metals, and other categories of matter. This matter can be in the form of solid, liquid, or gas states.

The atom is a basic unit of chemistry. Its core is made up of positively charged protons, uncharged neutrons, and negatively charged electrons. A chemical element is a pure type of atom that has a particular number of protons in the nuclei that is known as the atomic number and is represented as a particular symbol. The standard way to show the chemical elements is in a chart called the Periodic Table in which the elements are displayed by atomic number. The Periodic Table is arranged in groups, columns, and rows. This chart or Table shows how organized the basic elements are and presents the basic elements that compose all matter.

As a subject, chemistry is usually divided into three principal areas that students study and that scientists use. These are physical chemistry, organic chemistry, and inorganic chemistry. Physical chemistry is the study of the physical and fundamental aspects of chemical systems and processes. Sub-branches of this area include chemical kinetics, electrochemistry, quantum chemistry, solid-state chemistry, spectroscopy, and thermochemistry. Organic chemistry is the study of structure, properties, composition, and reactions of organic compounds. When a compound has carbon in it, it is normally an organic compound. Sub-branches include biochemistry, bio-organic chemistry, medicinal chemistry, physical organic chemistry, and polymer chemistry. Finally, inorganic chemistry is the study of properties and reactions of inorganic compounds or compounds that lack carbon.

There are numerous other areas of chemistry that are utilized by professional chemists and scientists. All these categories demonstrate how vast, complex, and organized this subject really is. Chemistry is now sub-dividing atoms into even smaller particles, a subject that I won’t go into now. Suffice it to say that chemistry is an organized, complicated field of study. Could chemistry have developed by accident, by random, or by design? If chemistry developed by accident or by random, it would also deviate by other, less organized ways too. Wouldn’t it? How would the subject stay as organized as we’ve seen unless it developed by design? If it developed by design, the question arises, who created it? Isn’t this evidence of God’s existence?

What do you think? If you have any questions or thoughts, please share with me at I would love to hear from you. We can all learn when we share our thoughts and ideas.

Can Mathematics Prove God Exists?

How does mathematics prove that God exists? According to the American Heritage Student Dictionary, mathematics can be defined as, “The study of the measurement, relationships, and properties of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols. Arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and calculus are branches of mathematics.” Wikipedia quotes Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), “The universe cannot be read until we have learned the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written.” We know that mathematics is used in many fields including business, finance, natural science, engineering, medicine, and social sciences.

School children learn basic arithmetic that includes addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. It is quite clear that school children complete these arithmetic calculations with specific steps to reach logical answers. Multiplication and division problems also have determined or calculated results. Many formulas are used by people to describe important relationships such as one in which “d” stands for distance, “r” stands for rate, and “t” stands for time. The basic formula is d = r * t, which means the distance equals the rate times time. One can merely convert the formula mathematically to describe other relationships mathematically. It is possible to calculate the rate by converting the formula to r = d/t.

Another branch of mathematics is algebra. According to Wikipedia, algebra is “the study of mathematical symbols and the rules for manipulating these symbols.” Algebra is generally considered to be essential to study more deeply in mathematics, science, or engineering. it also has applications in medicine and economics. Students use letters to stand for numbers; for example, they find solutions to various mathematical problems in which they need to determine an unknown quantity. The point I make is that however complex the applications may be, there are organized rules and procedures when using algebra.

Geometry is another branch of mathematics that deals with the study of shape through studying angle properties, postulates, and theorems. A postulate is a proposition that has not been proven to be true, but it is considered to be true for the purpose of mathematical reasoning. Theorems are statements that have been proven to be true. Another concept that is used in geometry is the idea that angles are congruent if they are measured in degrees and are equal. Congruent angles do not have to point in the same direction.

Calculus, another branch of mathematics, has two main areas of application. One is differential calculus that focuses on rates of change and slopes of curves, and the other is integral calculus that focuses on the accumulation of quantities and the areas under and between curves. Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz are generally credited with developing modern calculus in the 17th century. Today calculus is used in science, engineering, business, and economics. Studying calculus is a basic step to learning more advanced courses in mathematics.

Mathematics is so organized and complex in all its branches, but it did not develop by accident or by random. The only way it makes sense for mathematics to be created is by an intelligent being. Mathematics is clear evidence of the existence of God. There are too many rules and procedures for it to be developed by accident or by random even over billions of years. It takes a high amount of intelligence to think out or develop all these different branches of mathematics.

If you would like to comment on these thoughts, please feel free to offer your thoughts at I would love to hear from you. We all grow by sharing our thoughts and reasoning. What do you think?

How Big is the Sky?

Astronomy provides another piece of evidence for us. What do we think about the stars in the sky at night? Do we simply admire the vast array of bright stars? Do we think about how far away they are from our earth? How many of us know anything about the constellations that appear before us? No matter what questions we may think about, astronomy provides more evidence that God exists.

A number of years ago, when I visited my older brother, a retired aeronautical engineer for NASA at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, he took me to tour the Space and Rocket Center Museum located near MSFC. During our visit, one of the guides told me that there are billions of stars in our Milky Way galaxy and billions of galaxies in our universe. Recently, I read on the internet that there are reportedly 100 billion galaxies in our universe. To me, that’s mind-boggling. That is enormous–even beyond our comprehension!

This astounding fact raises some major questions for me. First, I wonder if there are other human beings or other beings in other parts of the universe, let alone in our galaxy. It is easy for us to say that there are no other lifeforms in our solar system, but can we say that with any certainty about other galaxies? It seems unreasonable to make that assumption about other parts of the universe. Especially if we haven’t traveled around the universe and actually investigated that question. Rather, it seems quite probable that other lifeforms exist on other planets throughout the universe.

Then, if there are other lifeforms, would it seem logical that some lifeforms may be more advanced than we are and some that may be less advanced than we are? Without even going into space, on earth, we know some people in various countries are quite advanced in Europe, Asia, and South America, as examples. Similarly, there are some tribes who are less advanced in Africa, South America, and Australia, as other examples. It is important to note that these continents have both advanced and less advanced people. No continent is necessarily all one way or all the other. Since we have this kind of diversity among peoples on earth, it seems to make sense that such diversity most likely exists among different planets in different galaxies, as we look at the whole universe. Don’t you think?

When we were babies, from our perspective of life, life essentially revolved around us. As we grew older, we realized that there were other children and adults. We needed to learn how to get along with other children in school and other adults in society. When we learned how to drive cars, we became aware of our need and responsibility to follow the laws of society. Our world grew wider and bigger as we got older and more aware of other peoples’ rights and responsibilities. When we started to travel around our country and around the world, we realized that the world had different cultures, laws, rights, and privileges. In other words, the world grew bigger and more complex. Now, as we look at possible space travel, we anticipate that we will broaden our outlook and understanding even more.

A few years ago, when my wife and I visited Florence, Italy, we learned about Galileo. He shocked the Roman Catholic Church and the intellectuals of his day when he announced that contrary to the belief of most people of his day, the earth revolved around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the earth. He shattered the egocentric viewpoint that most people had in his day. It broadened the horizons of those people. However, it was such a shock that the Pope put Galileo under house arrest and tried to destroy his credibility. The Pope would not tolerate such sacrilegious views and would not allow Galileo to corrupt the thinking of people in general. It is interesting that the scientific view that Galileo espoused outlasted the foolishness that the Pope erroneously supported. While many people know about Galileo, few people remember the name of the Pope who imprisoned the great man in his own house.

As we get older and as life progresses, we look at a bigger and bigger picture of life and existence. We see a broader view and recognize our small thinking is replaced by a bigger truth. What do you think?

If you would like to comment or ask a question, please feel to write to me at I would love to hear from you.

Is the Human Body a Miracle or What?

Since we’ve already discussed how complex and phenomenal the human brain is, let’s discuss the human eye. To truly comprehend the intricacy and high development of the eye, Grant Jeffrey suggests we need to understand the function of the retina. He says:

“The retina lines the back of the eye and acts as a type of film, receiving the actual image composed of light photons passing through the iris, cornea, and eye fluid. Your retina is thinner than paper, yet its tiny surface (only one inch square) contains 137 million light-sensitive cells. Approximately 95 percent of these cells are rods that can analyze black-and-white images, while the balance of approximately seven million cone cells analyze color images. Each of these millions of cells is separately connected to the optic nerve, which transmits the signal to your brain at approximately three hundred miles an hour. The millions of specialized cells in your eye can analyze more than one million messages a second and then transmit the data to the brain.”

How does the retina contain 137 million light-sensitive cells? Why do 95 percent of those cells analyze black-and-white images? Why isn’t it 90 percent? Or 85 percent? How was it set to 95 percent? Who set it? Why is it only five percent analyze color images? Why not 10 or 20 percent? Why do these cells that are connected to optic nerves transmit the signal at around 300 miles per hour? How can the cells transmit the information that fast? How can millions of specialized cells analyze more than one million messages a second? That is astonishing! Scientists need to answer these kinds of questions. That’s the purpose of science. Did these facts result by accident, by random, or by design? It seems to me that scientists need to answer all these questions. Don’t you agree?

Scientists cannot simply punt the ball, as they say in football. It’s not their job to punt but to face the questions and answer them. That means they have to study the issues and perform experiments or do research to find the answers. However, they can’t seem to answer them, can they? It appears to be beyond their skills and abilities to answer straight-forward questions like these aforementioned questions. To simply deny that a superior intelligent being might be the cause of these things is easier to do, but it is not scientific, not rational, and not acceptable to most people. In science, some people feels it is necessary to prove that God exists. However, it is easier to offer evidence that God exists than it is to prove that He doesn’t exist. If there is no God or intelligent being, they need to prove that just as much as it is necessary to prove the reverse is true, but they can’t. Who can? Can you or I?

How Does the Human Body Show That God Exists?

The human body is so remarkable that many people believe it’s a miracle. It is so intricate, so organized, and so incredible. Could a human being develop such intricacy and complexity by random or by accident, even if you’re talking about millions of years? It is really doubtful!

The different organs have been so designed with specific purposes and functions that cannot be explained by theories of random or accidental development. It can only be explained by some level of intelligent design.

In my book I discuss three organs to demonstrate that point. Those are the brain, eyes, and the liver. Grant Jeffrey in his book “Creation: Remarkable Evidence of God’s Design” points out, “The hundred billion neurons in our brains are intricately linked to each other in the most intricate and complex network in the known Universe.” In the known Universe, he said. He adds to that by saying, “There are more than one quadrillion intricate electrical connections, or synapses, with the brain, making it the most phenomenally complex machinery scientists have discovered in the Universe.” One quadrillion synapses in our brains! Can that happen by random?

If one asserts it happened by random, don’t we have to take into account that some of those random acts deviated into different directions with different results? How can random acts be so focused for only one result? That’s not even normal science. Random development must mean different results and different paths of development. How can the brain become so developed the way it is if other random acts are also occurring? Scientists, as I see it, have to account for the other paths that resulted over the millions of years. What were the results that happened? They don’t know because they did not investigate them. Is science simply a matter of following one path? Is science simply a matter of jumping to one conclusion? I don’t think so. Do you?

What Does Botany Teach Us?

I’ve written about the validity of science and how accurate it is.  However, as I began high school and started to take science classes, I didn’t have any doubts about science. It turned out that I took several science classes including botany, chemistry, and physics.  I actually took chemistry twice simply to increase my grade during the second time.  But actually I enjoyed the subject a lot.  In addition, I took a lot of math classes.  I started with algebra, followed by plane geometry, advanced algebra, trigonometry, and solid geometry.  As I started college, I took calculus too.  My focus on these subjects led me to think in very precise terms when I examined different subjects and even life.

One of the first revelations I had occurred when I took botany instead of biology.  When I was in high school, it seemed like everybody I knew wanted to take biology.  I heard the stories by students who previously had taken biology in which they described one of the requirements of the class was to dissect a frog.  It really didn’t appeal to me to cut up a frog into different pieces.  So I thought that to fulfill the science requirement I would take botany, the study of plants, instead of biology.  I did learn a lot about plants.  So it turned out to be an interesting choice for me.

The botany class taught me that all plant life is organized into seven levels of organization.  Every level of particular plants shared certain characteristics that helped classify the plants into that category.  Those classifications were kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, with the categories ranging from the highest or most general classification down to the lowest or most specific level of organization.  It struck me how specific and how organized the different categories were.  That revelation was seared into my memory since then. Then as time wore on, it made me wonder why were plants so well organized. How did that happen?

Later, it surprised me to learn that all animal life is also organized into the same classifications that are seven levels deep just like plants are organized.  That seemed awfully coincidental.  But I did not think much more about it—until later when I started to connect the dots.  Since this started me to think that this kind of organization of plants and animals was not an accident, this led me to present this information as one of the first pieces of evidence that I presented in my new book. Did this kind of organization occur by accident? Did it occur because of random evolution? Or did this occur by design? It started me to question things. Does this make you question this too? What bigger picture does botany teach us?

If you input the link, you may be able to see a video interview that I had on GMAP Broadcast Network with Pastor Kevin Strawder on Tuesday, June 22.

If you have any questions or want to share your thoughts about my blog, you are welcome to email me at It would be great to hear from you.

Do YOU Believe in God?

Everybody has their own opinion to answer that question. Everybody has the right to believe or not to believe. Because some people claim there is no physical evidence of God’s existence, I asked myself whether or not there is any such evidence. Then I wondered whether or not I could find any evidence.

Consequently, I examined different sciences to seek evidence to answer that question. However, even before examining any science, I asked the simple question: Do we believe in science? “Is science truthful? Is it accurate?” were my questions. Aren’t those fair questions to ask before assuming that science is “the final answer,” as they say on those television shows? Haven’t we seen, heard, and read about science changing its conclusions over time? Isn’t it true that what was true yesterday is not true today? And what is true today invariably and frequently won’t be true tomorrow? Anyone familiar with science knows that science is an ongoing process of learning new truths. We realize that new evidence can overturn old evidence. Let’s be honest and admit that to start with.

So, is science accurate? In response to that question, I wrote in my book that science is accurate “to the limit of our knowledge.” We need to realize that science is accurate, relatively speaking. Nevertheless, certain scientific facts are consistently true. Maybe not always or forever true, but consistently true. For example, in botany, all plant life is divided into seven levels of organized categories. Also, in zoology, all animal life is similarly divided into seven levels of organized categories. Does that happen by accident, by random, or by design? It behooves us to explain why that’s true. Simply denying that God exists is not an adequate, reasonable, or scientific explanation to prove that God doesn’t exist. Neither is it scientifically true to merely claim that God does exist. Either way, science requires proof. Philosophically, it’s a different story. However, my book is not a philosophical or theological book. It is a scientific study.

What I did was to look at science, including botany and zoology, to find scientific facts that provided evidence of God’s existence. Theology, philosophy, and other subjects may offer their own explanations or “proof” of God’s existence, but those fields of knowledge were excluded in my examination. My focus was exclusively on objective evidence offered by science to answer the basic question. I was not focused on subjective evidence. While those other fields of knowledge may or may not be legitimate paths for examination, they were not the purpose of my study. I wanted concrete evidence. So, again, I say that my study was a scientific study.

I didn’t write the book because I am an expert or an acknowledged authority in the subject. I wrote the book because science itself is the recognized authority on science. My evidence is already-accepted scientific evidence. The credibility comes from science instead of me. My book is merely a report of what science says. No more, no less. To refute the evidence in the book, one must refute science. To refute science is certainly not impossible because it is done all the time. However, to refute basic scientific evidence, one must refute basic science such as the above-mentioned fact that botany and zoology classify all plant and animal life into seven levels of categories. That takes more of a major effort to prove. That’s why my thesis is science proves God’s existence.

If you have any comment or question, let me know at It would be nice to hear your views.