Education vs Common Core

Scientific censorship by any other name


An Indiana newspaper, the Journal & Courier, ran an article about an academic freedom bill in the state, inaccurately reporting that the bill would “open the door to any controversial science topic — whether it includes intelligent design or anything else.” That claim has now been picked up by the Associated Press which likewise says that the bill would “open the door for topics such as intelligent design — the theory that life on Earth is so complex it was guided by an intelligent higher power.”

WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG again. Typical of liberals to carefully word their statements to say not what they mean. It all goes back to Clinton and what the meaning of “is” “is.”

First, academic freedom bills are only intended to cover topics that are already in the curriculum. Topics that are not in the curriculum (like intelligent design) are not covered by such legislation. Thus, the current Indiana academic freedom bill states:

A teacher shall be allowed to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of conclusions and theories being presented in a course being taught by the teacher.


The state board, the department, governing bodies, superintendents, principals, and other administrators may not prohibit a teacher in a public school from helping students to understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing conclusions and theories being presented in a course being taught by the teacher.

The intent of the language, referring to “conclusions and theories being presented in a course being taught by the teacher,” is to limit the scope of an academic freedom bill to protect only discussion of topics that are already in the curriculum.


But is intelligent design part of the curriculum anywhere in Indiana (or anywhere else, for that matter)? No, it isn’t. Thus, it doesn’t come under the protection of an academic freedom bill. Anyone who says otherwise misunderstands the intent behind academic freedom legislation.

There’s a second problem: the Associated Press’s definition of intelligent design, “the theory that life on Earth is so complex it was guided by an intelligent higher power.” That is wrong because it frames intelligent design as a strictly negative argument against Darwinian evolution, and because it claims that intelligent design appeals to a “higher power.” A much better definition would go something like this: “intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

Intelligent Design

The poem or the blot

There is a little known short story by Hans Christian Andersen called ‘The Pen and the Inkstand’. ( )

In the story the pen and the inkstand compete for the accolades of the writer.

The inkstand said to the pen “It is wonderful and extraordinary what a number of things come out of me. It’s quite incredible, and I really don’t know what is coming next when that man dips his pen into me. One drop out of me is enough for half a page of paper, and what cannot half a page contain? From me, all the works of a poet are produced; all those imaginary characters whom people fancy they have known or met. All the deep feeling, the humour, and the vivid pictures of nature. I myself don’t understand how it is, for I am not acquainted with nature, but it is certainly in me.”

ink_bottle_and Pen

Said the pen, “you don’t think at all; if you did, you would see that you can only provide the means. You give the fluid that I may place upon the paper what dwells in me, and what I wish to bring to light. It is the pen that writes: no man doubts that; and, indeed, most people understand as much about poetry as an old inkstand.”

Late in the evening the poet came home. He had been to a concert, and had been quite enchanted with the admirable performance of a famous violin player whom he had heard there. … It was a wonderful performance and a difficult piece, and yet the bow seemed to glide across the strings so easily that it was as if any one could do it who tried. Even the violin and the bow appeared to perform independently of their master who guided them; it was as if soul and spirit had been breathed into the instrument, so the audience forgot the performer in the beautiful sounds he produced. Not so the poet; he remembered him, and named him, and wrote down his thoughts on the subject. “How foolish it would be for the violin and the bow to boast of their performance, and yet we men often commit that folly.”

Now Hans Christian Andersen wrote this particular story in order to point out the fact that we are all implements that the Almighty uses. However, Hans unintentionally makes another point- the absurdity of the pen or the ink being the responsible party for the poetry. They are nothing more than tools, any of a variety of instruments, but we need the mind of the poet to actually create the meaning. The ordering of the words to convey information cannot come from the tools themselves. If a gust of wind knocked the pen and inkstand over, the resultant ink blot would have no meaning—even if it by some weird chance resembled a word instead Rorschach inkblot. If there was no poet, and no one to read and understand the poetry, then the ink and the pen could produce nothing but glitches and mistakes.

That is exactly what the proponents of atheistic evolution believe. It really is as absurd as that, as simple as that, as stupid as that, as unbelievable as that. Creationists deride cosmic evolution as a theory which says ‘hydrogen is a colorless, odorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.’ This is considered to be an insult to the ‘sophisticated’ and the ‘intelligensia’ who accept evolutionary theory, but in essence that is what it all boils down to. Where does the information come from which will restructure matter and give it meaning? Does it erupt, evolve, emanate, emerge from the matter itself? For if there is no outside intelligence affecting the raw, unchanged, pristine material, that is exactly what must be the case.

Therefore, to the secular evolutionist, the ink and the pen must be the source of the poetry, for there is no need for a poet to create a poem out of random letters, words, phrases and sentences. But if there is no poet, how can the words created be recognized as words? It can only be that there is intelligence in the ink. The ink itself needs to produce itself so the inkwell doesn’t run dry, and the pen creates an elaborate language to express what needs to be expressed for all other pens and inkwells to understand. Does anyone in their right mind believe that?

But if for ‘ink’ you read the chemical basis of DNA, with its 4 bases (this is the ‘raw material’ with which the genetic language is written), and for ‘pen’ you read the structure of DNA and RNA, the tool which uses the basic raw material, then surely that is what evolutionists believe?

Hans Christian Andersen gently mocked the idea that the pen or inkstand themselves could create poetry. How he might have laughed at the notion that DNA and genes could by themselves create living beings! In modern terms, it is equivalent to saying that a word processor left to itself would, given time, write the instruction manual to use itself—and more than that, to program itself.


Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design or Evillution Again-pt 2

Part 1 of this introduction for non-believers laid out the argument that strong non-believers contradict their own worldviews by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief. Since there is no direct observational evidence regarding the origin of the universe, why should anyone believe the equally unobserved hypothesis that God created the universe?

While there is no direct evidence for the cause of the universe, we do have a fair amount of knowledge about the early history of the universe and the various physical laws that govern it- whether you believe in old-earth or young-earth theory. This provides us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Creator designed the universe.

To keep this essay brief, much of the supporting information will not be included, but the links to the full-length articles you can read for the details will be at the end. If you have any questions about any of the facts presented, feel free to email me at and I’ll clarify the data for you.

Way to many people don’t do their research and fall for half-truths. It is especially important in the area of Biblical studies because many ‘popular’ Biblical ‘scholarly’ books being written have many doctrinal fallacies to prove their point. I have included the book covers of some of the ones I have read for this article.

WhytheUniverse refutingCompromise

( Yes, I am documenting some of them and will write an article on it. Such as the above Hugh Ross is appearing to be the leader of the religious big bang theory and long earth beliefs, by misinterpreting the Hebrew language to suit his belief and reinterpreting biblical passages to say what fits into his theory. It is an interesting book, but be careful reading it and Sarfati’s ‘Refuting Compromise’ is a great rebuttal-same information-totally different viewpoints).

First we have the non-believers who say that science cannot have anything to say about the existence of God, and then we have the “new non-believers” who think that they can prove the non-existence of God through science. Although science cannot directly detect God, it can examine His creation or for the non-believers the known world around us. Now how do we do that?

We all accept that love exists, knowing full well that love cannot be directly measured by science. However, by observing those who love each other, we can indirectly measure the affect of love on these individuals’ actions. We might notice that they spend a lot of time together, they are constantly holding and kissing each other. Although we cannot measure love directly, we can measure the indirect effects of love. Likewise, although we cannot measure God directly, we can examine the universe to detect God’s imprint on the physical world.

The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be.

Big Bang –matter anti-matter: According to the ‘big bang’ theory for the origin of the universe, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have formed.[I] Antimatter is the same as matter except that each particle has the opposite charge, magnetic moment, etc. For instance, the antiparticle for the negatively charged electron is the positively charged positron. Antimatter is supposed to be an exact counterpart to matter, down to the same mass. One speculation of why there have been no antimatter domains detected, at least in the nearby universe, is that soon after the ‘big bang,’ a slight asymmetry developed between matter and antimatter.1 After equal amounts of matter and antimatter had destroyed each other, this asymmetry allowed matter to dominate in our region of space.

A second speculation is that during the supposed inflation very early in the ‘big bang,’ matter and antimatter became segregated into ‘non-overlapping domains.’1 Excluding the loophole that there is one large domain of matter and one large domain of antimatter, the visible universe appears to be composed of all matter. Physical laws indicate that equal amounts of matter and antimatter would have been created in the proposed ‘big bang.’ Therefore missing antimatter in the universe should challenge the ‘big bang’ theory, an implication none of the long earth theorists are willing to discuss.

Further difficulty with the Big Bang hypothesis is that mathematical analysis shows that galaxies will not form by gravitational condensation from random statistical fluctuations in the cosmic gases because of the disruptive effect of the expansion of the Universe.

Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.[II] Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible.

Size of Universe:  The large size of the universe has been said to be an argument against the existence of the God of Christianity. If the purpose of God were to create a place for humans to live, why din not God just create one star and one planet? Isn’t the existence of trillions of galaxies a complete waste? Does not the huge size and mass of the universe suggest that humans are just a cosmic accident among the numerous habitable planets? The scale of this subject is stupendous. On this cosmological scale our floating life station, planet Earth, is totally insignificant, having a radius of only six thousand kilometers. Likewise for the Moon, the Sun, and the whole Solar System which, discounting the comets, is contained within a radius of only 6 billion kilometers. In considering the origin of the Universe, even objects the size of our Milky Way galaxy with its billions of stars contained within a radius of a billion billion kilometers are of insignificant size. We are considering here the origin of all the galaxies constituting the metagalaxy (i.e. the whole known universe) so it is appropriate here to reflect on the nature of the metagalaxy[III].

An evolutionary model is the general idea that the Earth, the Universe and all things came into their present form by a slow gradual process of self-transformation—from an inchoate (imperfectly formulated ) rudimentary chaos of elementary matter over billions and billions of years into the present complex, intricate Cosmos that we know today. Whereas by a creation model is meant the idea that the Universe was brought into being by a special completed processes as a functioning, complete and balanced whole and has since been wearing down and disintegrating into disorder. The two philosophical viewpoints are diametrically opposed; all evolutionary models say the Universe goes from chaos to cosmos, while the creation model says it goes from cosmos to chaos.

The Right Laws of Physics:

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work “well enough” to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed.[IV]

Universal Probability: “Unlikely things happen all the time.” This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history[V].


What do the non-believers say:  Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

  • “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”[VI]
  • “Polarization is predicted. It’s been detected and it’s in line with theoretical predictions. We’re stuck with this preposterous universe.”
  • [VII]“In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without “miracles,” that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely.”[VIII]

Multi-verse theory:

The newest “solution” to design in the universe is a belief in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life.[IX]

What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist).[X]

Even the Big Bang Theory made fun of the multi-verse on one of its segments.


Theistic Solutions:

On the other hand, the deist or theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither the multiverse nor the “God hypothesis” is testable. However, the “God hypothesis” is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this?

Only an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see.


The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.[XI]

God’s Purpose for the Universe:

What does a universe look like that requires free will choice? First, there is a requirement for cause and effect. Since we live in such a universe, we tend to assume that cause and effect is a given. However, time, a necessary component of cause and effect, is a construct of this universe, and began at the initiation of the Big bang.[XII] In addition to time, it must be clear that choices exist, and that there are differences between those choices. The Bible says that we must choose between good and evil (which is why evil must exist, as well as night and day, hot and cold, up and down, etc.), and accept God’s solution (salvation through Jesus Christ) to the problem of evil.

There are two forms of revelation (general and special) that God has used to inform mankind of their choices. General revelation comes from nature itself. This is one reason why the universe is as big as what it is. If God had created one star and one planet, we might think about how it came to be, but we would have no way of studying those two objects to make any kind of inference about their origin. However, the Bible says that God spreads out the stars,[XIII] and that we can study the universe to see how great God is,[XIV] so that we are without excuse in rejecting Him.[XV]


[I] Taubes, G., Theorists nix distant antimatter galaxies, Science, 278:226, 1997

[II] Big Bang nucleosynthesis, Wikipedia. (For what it is worth!)

[III] Cosmology Tutorial, Part 3: Spatial Curvature; Flatness-Oldness; Horizon, Edward L. (Ned) Wright, UCLA.

[IV] evgeny Epelbaum, Hermann Krebs, Timo A. Lähde, Dean Lee, and Ulf-G. Meißner. 2013. Viability of Carbon-Based Life as a Function of the Light Quark Mass. Physical Review Letters DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.112502.

[V] Halliday, D. and R. Resnick. 1988. Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd ed. extended, New York: Wiley, p. 544. Note that universal time bounds for electronic computers have clock speeds between ten and twenty magnitudes slower than the Planck time- see Ingo Wegener, The Complexity of Boolean Functions (Stuttgart: Wiley-Teubner, 1987), 2.

[VI] Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature401: 252-254401: 252-254.

[VII] Discovery Supports Astronomers’ Paradoxical Views of the Universe from Adler Planetarium & Astronomy Museum

[VIII] Dyson, L., M. Kleban, and L. Susskind. 2002.Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant. Reprint from arXiv.

[IX] Glanz, J. 1999. AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY MEETING: Hawking Blesses the Accelerating Universe.Science 284: 34-35.

[X] The Origin-of-Life Prize from the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.

[XI] “My approach to reality is different. I believe that we have to accept the implications of physical law, whatever these implications are. If they imply the existence of God, well, then God exists.” Tipler, F. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity.

[XII] “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.” Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time. Penrose, R. 1966. An analysis of the structure of space-time. Adams Prize Essay, Cambridge University. Hawking, S.W. 1966. Singularities and the Geometry of space-time. Adams Prize Essay, Cambridge University. Hawking, S.W. and G.F.R. Ellis. 1968. The cosmic black-body radiation and the existence of singularities in our universe. Astrophysical Journal 152: 25-36. Hawking, S.W. and R. Penrose. 1970. The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: 529-548.

  1. [XIII] The following verses suggest that God created the universe through an expanding universe – what science has called the Big Bang. In many cases the Hebrew text indicates present tense – a process still continuing.
  • Who alone stretches out the heavens, And tramples down the waves of the sea; (Job 9:8)
  • Covering Thyself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain. (Psalm 104:2)
  • It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. (Isaiah 40:22)
  • Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it, (Isaiah 42:5)
  • Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone” (Isaiah 44:24)
  • “It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host.” (Isaiah 45:12)
  • “Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together.” (Isaiah 48:13)
  • That you have forgotten the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens, And laid the foundations of the earth; That you fear continually all day long because of the fury of the oppressor, As he makes ready to destroy? But where is the fury of the oppressor? (Isaiah 51:13)
  • It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 10:12)
  • It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 51:15)
  • The burden of the word of the Lord concerning Israel. Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, (Zechariah 12:1)


[XIV] The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)

[XV] … what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20) And the heavens declare His righteousness, For God Himself is judge. Selah. (Psalm 50:6) The heavens declare His righteousness, And all the peoples have seen His glory. (Psalm 97:6)




Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design or Evillution Again

This point apparently continues to come because some persons believe that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence (an illusion at best), some people just sit on the fence afraid or just indifferent to make a determination that would affect the rest of their life. I’m not trying to make anybody jump from one side or the other or even get down off the fence (which implies taking a side). All I want to do is provide information and let each person stand where they may.


The main sticking point for believers and non-believers alike is that we must consider the possibility that our beliefs are wrong to rationally examine the evidence that contradicts those beliefs. For myself, having grown up as an agnostic atheist (one who did not believe in God, but could not claim that no god exists), I have undergone a couple of paradigm shifts as an adult.

The first occurred within 30 days after March 19, 1978 when I went into St. Luke’s Behavioral Research Center in Phoenix, AZ as an alcoholic with a reading of 3.2. Somewhere along the rehab-way I found a belief in a higher power- an imaginary person, tree or thing that had a power greater than me to stop me from drinking and abusing drugs, because I couldn’t do it by myself. Kind of like the ‘Oneness’ that others talk about. I went from atheism to deism (a belief that a god created the universe), and as a result, over time, my perception that science has failed miserably in its explanation of the origin of the universe and the how the origin of life on earth began.

Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no “beliefs.” However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work. A good introduction to this field can be found in Andrew Newberg’s book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth.


Skeptics like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic that we have observed, read or thought about- this is not true. We generally become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that we rarely change our worldview, if at all. To continue with this discussion I am asking you to dump your emotional attachment to your particular worldview and consider the evidence without any emotional attachments. If you cannot do that there is no reason for you to continue reading.

My second, more difficult paradigm shift occurred in the late 1980’s, when I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and admitted that He was the Creator of all things. If you are ready to consider the possibility that your worldview and beliefs might be wrong, and want to look directly at the evidence I will present, feel free to skip ahead to part 2. However, I feel it is important for skeptics to recognize that not all of their beliefs are based upon physical evidence, and are often inconsistent with their own worldview.

So let us begin, again.

So let us agree on some principles that should govern a skeptical or non-believers worldview. The first and foremost principle is that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. This would be evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It is important to know that observational evidence does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation). Skeptics must rely completely upon physical evidence, unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings.


The second principle is that skeptics must be logically consistent at all times they may not believe something to be true if it is contradicted by observational evidence. Most skeptics who are non-believers feel that all phenomena has naturalistic causes because they observe cause and effect on a daily basis, with rare exception. This brings up the question, “Just because cause and effect appear to overwhelmingly operate in our universe, does this mean that supernatural events never occur?” Even the Bible, which is a record of God’s supernatural actions, over 90% of what is described, is purely naturalistic. Anyone who insists that supernatural events never occur is expressing a belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded and to dump your emotional attachment to your particular worldview, you must recognize the possibility that supernatural events could occur.

One major problem with the skeptical worldview is they do not recognize that not all the data really fits into your worldview. The particular data we are going to examine is the origin of the universe. Non-believers are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that exist must have had a cause. Therefore, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all non-believers say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). There is no direct observational evidence for either belief. Non-believers have just violated one of their main rules – that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. Any non-believer who denies the possible existence of God violates their own worldview.

The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting some level of design (the evidence supporting this statement will be presented in part 2). If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism.   The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause (despite the billions of dollars being spent) for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

A skeptic or non-believer is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, non-believers state that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally.

So let us go to part 2 to examine the evidence unemotionally and with a great deal of thought and respect for everyone’s beliefs.