Intelligent Design

The universe revolves around the earth

I am constantly amazed at how often the secular evolutionary types continue to bring up ‘old wives tales’ of the flat-earth and the universe revolves around the earth theories when they can’t possibly continue to discuss or debate a particular subject intelligently.  What the big problem is, most of them even get the facts they try to fall back on wrong.  Therefore, here is a concise, chronologically and historically accurate history of “How the World Turns”

Alleged history of the Universe


Standard big bang Friedmann-Lemaître cosmology[1], derived from Einstein’s field equations, requires what is known as the cosmological principle to be true for it to be a valid solution of those field equations.  This then became the basis of today’s standard big bang model.

The cosmological principle is an extension of what is known as the Copernican principle, named after Nicolas Copernicus who advocated the idea that the Sun is at the centre of the Universe.  That was, of course, of the Universe as they understood it at that time, nearly 400 years ago.  This worldview is known as heliocentrism.

This is the fallacy that the others always fall back to- that this is the official position of the Church and the leaders of the world at that time. Of course, in the same breath or at least nearby they also state that scientific knowledge continues to grow, so do not hold the secular scientists to blame for thoughts that have since been proven wrong by technical advancements.

The Copernican principle is the assumption that the Earth is not at the centre of the Universe (i.e. instead the Sun is, in its original form). T he idea that the Earth is at the absolute centre of the Universe was the notion promoted by some Greek mathematician/philosophers like Aristotle and Ptolemy.[2]  At the time of Galileo,  the system describing the structure of the solar system and the stars beyond it was known as the Ptolemaic system.  It modified the perfect circles or spheres of Aristotle with a deferent and its epicycles.  These are ad hoc geometrical contrivances necessary to allow for elliptical orbits of the planets and their sometimes apparent-retrograde motions, notably of Mars.

Under Tycho Brahe, this system was further modified to account for observed fine-tuned motions, yet still maintaining the Earth at the centre of the system with the Sun orbiting around the Earth.  He refuted the pure Aristotelian system of a perfect unchanging realm and developed the Tychonic system which incorporated some aspects of the Copernican system into the Ptolemaic system yet maintaining geocentrism.  His very able assistant was Johannes Kepler, who went on to be one of the most brilliant astrophysicists of all time.  He developed his three laws of planetary motion with the aid of the vast wealth of Brahe’s meticulous observations, which he inherited after his teacher had died.  Kepler is supposed to have said he was “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

tycho's model

Galileo has been named the father of modern observational astronomy because in 1610 aided with a telescope (invented by Hans Lipperhey, a German spectacle maker in 1608) he discovered the four largest satellites (moons) of Jupiter: Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. He noticed that they revolved around their parent planet and not around the Earth. Therefore, he realized that the Earth was not at the center of the Universe.

Galileo was led to support and promote the Copernican notion of heliocentrism. There is much myth about these affairs but Galileo was opposed more by the geocentrist scientists of his day than by the Church which actually supported his work for many years until, through some untoward politics, he was accused of attacking Pope Urban VIII and the Jesuits. He was tried by the Holy Office of the Pope for heresy, forced to recant, and then banished to house arrest for the rest of his life.

Most modern-day astronomers believe Galileo was right—that the observational evidence in the solar system supports the notion that the planets, both major and minor ones, as well as the asteroid belt, revolve around the Sun. This is the heliocentric view of the solar system. With about 99% of the mass of the solar system in the Sun this seemed the only answer to what was observed. This view is what led Sir Isaac Newton to discover the universal law of gravitation, from which Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion can be derived.

The irony here is that Galileo promoted heliocentrism, for the whole Universe, but today very few people would believe in that, citing progressive knowledge. Today it is the cosmological principle that is believed to be the fundamental state of the Universe.

The cosmological principle extends the Copernican principle to the whole Universe. That is, the Earth does not occupy a special place in the Universe and observations made from Earth can be taken to be broadly characteristic of what would be seen from any other point in the Universe at the same epoch. On the largest scales, matter is assumed to be uniformly distributed (homogeneity) throughout the whole Universe and in every direction we look we see the same distribution of galaxies (isotropy). The extension of that notion is that the Universe has no centre and no edge. There is no privileged place and the Earth is randomly located in space.[3]

But doubt as to the accuracy of that belief arises within their own community.  Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman said, “ I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice born of a sequence of overthrows of geocentric ideas. … It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy that our place in the universe is extraordinary … To avoid embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity.[4]

These images are taken from a NewScientist article with the title “’Axis of evil’ warps cosmic background”.[5]

What has been discovered by Max Tegmark is that when one expands these small CMB temperature anisotropies into spherical harmonics something very unusual is observed. The lowest order expansion term is the dipole term with a cold component behind and a hot component in front describing the motion of the solar system through space. The next are the quadrupole, octuple and many higher order terms.

Today we should be observing highly redshifted radiation, leftover from the big bang fireball, coming uniformly from all directions. There is no preferred direction for this radiation therefore these multiple expansion terms should also have no preferred directions in space.


What this means, is that according to all of their ‘scientific calculations’ based upon all of their theories and introducing the appropriate ‘fudge factors’ the colors in the CMB should be randomly scattered.

However this is not what has been discovered in all three sets of satellite data, and in the case of the PLANCK satellite data, out to the 20th harmonic expansion term. The spherical harmonic expansion terms have their axes preferentially aligned with the plane of the solar system—the elliptic—and even more strangely with the direction in space determined by the two points where the apparent path of the Sun crosses the equator. These points in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun are a mere projection due to the tilt of the Earth’s spin axis. Why would the leftover radiation from a random fireball have a preferred direction and why would it be aligned somehow with our solar system? There is no good reason in big bang cosmology. The preferred direction is such a problem it is called the Axis of Evil.  Now I have to admit it took me several readings to understand the following statement by one of the scientists analyzing the Axis of Evil.  It is technical and if you need further help please write me and we will work through it together: “It is possible that some feature of the big bang may have suppressed the quadrupole signal. One such scenario is that the universe is a peculiar shape like a flat slab or a doughnut. “That way some of the sloshing motions of matter that caused the temperature variations in the cosmic background would not have been able to occur,” says Vale.”

In the Catholic world prior to Galileo’s conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth, despite the use of Copernican theories to reform the calendar in 1582.  Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.” In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, “the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place.”



[2] Aristarchus of Samos (c. 310 – c. 230 BC) developed a cosmology based on heliocentrism, saying that the Sun was at the center of the Universe, while the Earth and other planets revolved around it. Lawson, Russell M. (2004). Science in the Ancient World: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 19.

[3] J.G. Hartnett and K. Hirano, “Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys,” Astrophysics and Space Science, 318, 1 & 2, 13-24, 2008.

[4] Feynman, R.P., Morinigo, F.B. and Wagner, W.G., Feynman Lectures on Gravitation (Penguin Books, London), p. 166, 1999


The Science of it All

The Galileo twist

The Galileo twist

A little science estranges a man from God; a little more brings him back.-Francis Bacon (1561–1626)

Creationists are accused by other Christians with opposing views (as well as non-believers), of making the same mistake as the Roman Catholic Church did during the time of Galileo. Supposedly, the institutional Church insisted that the Bible taught that the sun went around the earth. Galileo showed that the opposite was true and believers found that they could accept this new fact, without any problem to their belief in the Bible. The historical events surrounding Galileo should be a warning to theistic evolutionists and long-agers, to not selectively pick and choose the facts as usual

First the background of this misinterpretation might (or might not) help the idiotlogues in understanding how this all came about.

Around 2,500 years ago, Aristotle (384–322 BC) taught that the earth was the center of a ‘perfect’ universe in which the movements of the stars were circular and never ending.  He was a philosopher and teacher.

Ptolemy (AD 2nd century) expanded these ideas into what was known as the Ptolemaic system[1].

Then in the 16th century, Copernicus (1473–1543) postulated as a better explanation that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.[2]


In the 17th century, Galileo (1564–1642), with his telescope, was able to carry out repeated and repeatable observations (which are one of the tenets of the ‘scientific method’) which refuted Aristotle and Ptolemy, and supported Copernicus.  He observed that the sun had spots which moved across its surface, which appeared to show that the sun was not ‘perfect’ and it itself rotated.  He observed the phases of Venus, relating that Venus must orbit the sun; and he discovered four moons that revolve around Jupiter, not the Earth, which was further evidence that the Earth was not the center of everything. In 1618, he observed three comets pass effortlessly through Ptolemy’s crystalline spheres (in which the planets and stars supposedly moved around the Earth), showing that these spheres must be imaginary.  Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials.  Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII.  He was not accused of criticizing the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree


The heliocentric (from Greek helios = sun) or Copernican system opposed the views of the astronomer-philosophers of the day, who earned their livelihood by teaching Aristotle and Ptolemy, and so they were highly biased against change. Therefore, they ignored, ridiculed, destroyed, or openly opposed Galileo’s writings. Unfortunately, many Church leaders gave into popular opinion and allowed themselves to be persuaded by the Aristotelians at the universities (which had powerful political sway at that time)  that the geocentric (earth-centered) system was taught in Scripture and that Galileo was contradicting the Bible.  They therefore bitterly opposed Galileo to the extent of threatening him with death to repudiate his findings.

This was because:

  1. The Church leaders had accepted as dogma the belief system of the pagan (i.e. non-Christian) philosophers, Aristotle and Ptolemy, which had become the worldview of the then scientific establishment. The result was that Church leaders were using the knowledge of the day to interpret Scripture, instead of using the Bible to evaluate the knowledge of the day. (Vice-versa, bass ackwards, I am sure you can think of other terms).
  2. They clung to the ‘majority opinion’ about the universe and rejected the ‘minority view’ of Copernicus and Galileo, even after Galileo had presented indisputable evidence based on repeatable scientific observations that the majority was wrong. (Being swayed by the masses or swaying the masses seems to be a common occurrence for the various sects that developed from early Christianity).
  3. They picked out a few verses from the Bible which they thought said that the sun moved around the earth, but they failed to realize that Bible texts must be understood in terms of what the author intended to convey. Thus, when Moses wrote of the ‘risen’ sun (Genesis 19:23) and sun ‘set’ (Genesis 28:11), his purpose was not to formulate an astronomical dictum. Rather he, by God’s spirit, was using the language of appearance so that his readers would easily understand what time of day he was talking discussing.[3] Moreover, it is perfectly valid in physics to describe motion relative to the most convenient reference frame, which in this case is the earth.

This plain meaning (the time of day) is perfectly satisfied by the language of appearance and does not demand the secondary deduction that it is the sun itself that moves.  Indeed, this is exactly the same thing that scientists do today in weather reports when they give the times of ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’. They are using the language of appearance, and using the earth as the reference frame. A convenient figure of speech does not invalidate science; nor does it invalidate the Bible.

Likewise verses such as Psalm 19:6 and 93:1, which the writer(s) clearly meant to be poetic expressions, were given a literal meaning by the social minded, crowd-pleasing priests.[4],[5]

Today we live in a world where most of the scientific establishment is heavily biased in favor of naturalism (the belief that everything can be explained by natural causes) and long ages. The scientific establishment propagates this belief system by claiming that everything in the universe originated in a big bang, and that all things are the result of evolution over billions of years., Many astronomers, scientists and teachers today have built their careers and earn their livelihood by teaching these ‘theories’ by selling books and making TV specials.


However, these ideas, like Ptolemy’s, although ingenious and possibly plausible to atheists, are loaded with complications and contradictions, and are simply wrong.[6]

At the same time there is a minority of biblical scientists, the creationists, who hold the opposing view that the Bible provides an impressive explanation of how the universe and life came into existence—created directly by God—and that the evidence from design, the fossil record, information theory, etc., is what one would expect if this was the case.  Their scientific studies are consistently poking holes in the evolutionary theories that secular scientists continue to invent concepts to fill in the gaps without explaining what the gaps are.

Unfortunately many Church leaders have allowed themselves to be persuaded by the  outrageous biased ‘science’ taught at the universities; they get around the atheistic part by telling all that the big bang, billions of years, and evolution are all compatible with Scripture (how they are able to reconcile this is the subject of many mystical fantasies).  This inevitably leads them to oppose the minority (creationist) view.

This is because:

  1. These Church leaders have accepted as dogma the belief system and philosophies of non-Christian secular scientists, like Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, et al. Like their 17th century predecessors, they are using the ‘knowledge’ of the day to interpret Scripture, instead of correctly using the Bible to evaluate the knowledge of the day.
  2. These leaders tend to cling to the majority opinion and reject the minority view. This despite the fact that there are many observations that uphold a young age and speak against an old age of the earth and universe.[7] In addition, there is no experiment performed by any evolutionist that has either observed or confirmed the theory of evolution, although they claim the “weight of the evidence” proves it[8].
  3. They end up trying to explain away the Genesis record of creation as myth or they introduce long ages into the account, but they fail to realize that Genesis, too, must be understood in terms of what the author intended to convey. Thus, a plain reading of the text shows that Moses’ purpose was not to set down a collection of myths or camp-fire stories, as is often claimed; nor are the days of Genesis 1 meant to be a metaphor for something else like long ages, or a simplistic way of explaining billions of years to a primitive culture.[9] Rather, the text shows that Moses wrote Genesis as a literal account of the history of the world from the beginning of creation to the arrival of the Hebrews in Egypt.

This creates an interesting ‘twist’ on the Galileo situation.  Back then, the Church leaders said that Bible verses, which were written in poetic format and meant to be poetry, should be taken literally; today they are saying that Bible passages which, were written as prose and meant to be literal history, should be taken as poetry!

Creationists are not making the same mistake as the Church did in the 17th century, by claiming that the Bible says something, which is contrary to fact.  Nevertheless, the Church (organized religion), largely, still is!  The Church (organized religion) has not paid attention to the lesson of history and still insists on taking a popular worldview as its authority, instead of upholding the Bible and allowing it to be its own interpreter.

The Church leaders of Galileo’s day mistakenly thought that the Bible supported a geocentric system.  There is nothing intrinsically atheistic in the notion that the earth moved.  Furthermore, there are no other doctrines that depend on the relative motions of the earth and the sun.  Which unlike many other religions that have (and some still do) worship the “heavens and the earth”.

By contrast, the theory of evolution is an atheistic explanation of origins and is the justification for the anti-God system of secular humanism, which pervades society today.  It also makes God the author of death and suffering which is the furthest from the truth.

Furthermore Christians who do not accept the Genesis account as literal history and the days of Genesis as literal earth days need to explain away a host of other Bible passages and doctrines.

The lesson from Galileo is not that the Church should not oppose the theory of evolution, but rather that it should, because science has not proven evolution; rather evolution is contrary to proven science and opposes the plain Word of God.

[1] According to Ptolemy, the sun, moon, planets, and stars all revolved around a fixed earth in a series of hollow, inter-nesting, crystalline spheres. This is called a geocentric or earth-centered system, and is known as the Ptolemaic system. There were some problems which Ptolemy’s geocentric system did not fully explain, notably the to-and-fro motion of the planets across the sky, as seen from the earth. He therefore postulated a number of mechanisms that were ingenious and initially plausible, but ultimately impossibly complicated and scientifically wrong. For example, each planet was said to move in its own small curve called an epicycle, while all the epicycles moved around the earth in larger circles called deferents.

[2] His book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), published in 1543, challenged Aristotle’s (and thus also at that time the Church’s) teaching that the earth was the centre of all change and decay, and that around it were the changeless heavens.

[3] Similarly, Joshua was using the language of appearance in Joshua 10:12–13. This will be dealt with in another article.

[4] Psalm 19:4–6 metaphorically describes the sun as coming forth from a tent in the heavens, and also personifies the sun both as a bridegroom and as a strong man running a race. One would have thought that even the inflexible literalists of Galileo’s day might have allowed the writer of this Psalm to have meant it to have had a poetical meaning.

[5] In Psalm 93:1, the phrase ‘the world also is established, that it cannot be moved’ needs to be read alongside v. 2, ‘[God’s] throne is established of old’, where the same Hebrew word [kown = ‘established’] is used and has the meaning ‘set up’, ‘stable’, ‘secure’, ‘enduring’, ‘confirmed’, etc., not ‘immobile’ or ‘stationary’. Likewise the Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (v.1) is used in Psalm 16:8, ‘I shall not be moved’, meaning that the writer would not stray from the path of the Lord, not that he was rooted to any one spot.

[6] For example, the exponents of the big bang fail to say where the energy originally came from, where the laws of science came from, and what it was that ‘quantum fluctuated’ before there was anything there to fluctuate, and so on. Molecules-to-man evolution is contrary to the principles of thermodynamics, as well as to the law of biogenesis (life comes only from life), the fossil record, and much more.  I have dealt with this numerous times and will undoubtedly have to continue due to the growing number of Talking Meme Heads and Idiotlogues.

[7] See, for example, John Morris, The Young Earth, Master Books, Arizona, 1994, and Evidence for a young world by Russell Humphreys.

[8] Using a legal term to justify a scientific theory is typical.  For a more exact description see: for a better understanding of the falsity of this approach.

[9] Top-flight Hebrew academics, e.g. Professor James Barr of the University of Oxford, are unanimous that the plain meaning that the Hebrew text is intended to convey is that ‘creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience’

Biblical Discussions, The Science of it All

Why the laws of logic work

Why the laws of logic work

When the non-believer embraces materialism, they literally destroy the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology. Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute-it virtually refutes itself.  A materialistic non-believer believes that nature (what we see, hear, smell, feel) is all that there is. The non-believer believes that there is no transcendent God who oversees and maintains creation. Many non-believers believe that their worldview is rational—and scientific. However, by embracing materialism, the non-believer has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology. To say it another way, if atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!

Why would I say that?  Reasoning involves knowing, understanding and using the laws of logic. This includes the ‘law of non-contradiction’ which says that you cannot have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship.  All of our beliefs, thoughts, and knowledge are built on top of the law of non-contradiction, so when a person tries to deny this foundation, they are bound to go way off track in their pursuit of understanding reality as it really is.   If you have any doubts about this fundamental law of rationality, try to deny it, but then write out your denial in a sentence – “The law of non-contradiction is false” – and ask whether your statement is both true and false at the same time and in the same sense.  If the law of non-contradiction is false, then your statement of denial must be both true and false.  However, if your denial is false, then the law of non-contradiction is true!  By denying the law of non-contradiction, you have just affirmed it.  The more you try to deny the law, the more you will affirm it.

However, why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can easily answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, instead it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

Laws of logic are God’s standard for our thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. Moreover, they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The materialistic non-believer cannot rationally have laws of logic. The non-believer believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. However, laws of logic are not physical. You cannot stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the non-believer’s world, yet the non-believer will always try to reason with them. This of course is completely inconsistent. The non-believer is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The non-believer’s view cannot be rational because they use laws of logic that cannot exist according to their own beliefs.

The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air. Can you imagine someone arguing that air does not actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the non-believer, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

A non-believer then continues, illogically, “I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” However, this is no different from the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This is not a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course, the non-believer can reason; it is because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic—and that is the point. It is because God exists that reasoning is possible. The non-believer can reason, but within his own worldview, he cannot account for his ability to reason.

The non-believer might respond, “Laws of logic are conventions made up by man.” However, conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. However, if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). Therefore, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies, truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that would not do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.

The non-believer might respond, “Laws of logic are material—they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.” Then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond your particular brain. In other words, we could not argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic were just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain and slightly different levels of required brain chemicals.

Sometimes a non-believer will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: “We use the laws of logic because they work.” Unfortunately, for them, that is not the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they are true. The question is why they exist in the first place. How can the non-believer account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?

As a last resort, the non-believer may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then they must consider the possibility that God exists. However, this concession does not save the non-believer’s position. They must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? Moreover, what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The non-believer cannot answer these questions. Their worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.

Clearly, non-believing is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the non-believer must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr. Cornelius VanTil[i] put it, “[A]theism presupposes theism.” Laws of logic require the existence of God—and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Since the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. However, if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance, as the non-believer contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible?

Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things; the non-believer does not. This is not to say that non-believers cannot be rational about some things. They can because they too are made in God’s image and have access to God’s laws of logic. However, they have no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview. Likewise, non-believers can be moral, but they have no basis for that morality according to what they claim to believe. A non-believer is a walking bundle of contradictions. He reasons and does science, yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science possible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience.

[i] a Christian philosopher, Reformed theologian, and presuppositional apologist.