By Rich Deem

Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

By David Rogstad, Ph.D.

In the April 2008 issue of Nature, an essay by Phillip Ball explains how, in his view, modern science began “in the twelfth century…several hundred years earlier than we have imagined” through a break with the theology of medieval Christianity as it emerged out of the darkness of the Middle Ages. In his words, “The architects of this new philosophy [a naturalistic worldview] attempted to reconcile their perspective with the pervasive religious sentiment of the Middle Ages. But in so doing they opened the schism between faith and reason that has since widened to a chasm.” He goes on to describe this growing tension by recounting a number of scientific contributions made in pre-enlightenment days and how these were opposed by the religious institutions.

Near the end of his article, Ball argues:

“By degrees, such secular learning was found to have so much explanatory power that it rivalled, rather than rationalized, theology itself. The consequent rift between faith and reason has now left traditional religions so compromised they are susceptible to displacement by more naive and dogmatic varieties.”

I do not feel qualified to argue with the picture he paints except to say that, based on my impression from reading works of some historians of science, like Stanley Jaki in The Savior of Science, Rodney Stark in The Victory of Reason, or Alister McGrath in Science & Religion: An Introduction, Christianity contributed far more to the scientific revolution than Ball gives credit.

However that argument may end, there is another path I would like to pursue here. Suppose Ball is right and real science began when medieval thinkers were able to break free from the shackles of a theistic worldview to follow a naturalistic one. Then I think it’s fair to ask, like Ken Samples has in his article “The Historic Alliance of Christianity and Science”, does a naturalistic worldview provide the presuppositions necessary to sustain a continuing scientific endeavor? Or is it that those early scientists, as well as scientists today, are borrowing their presuppositions from a theistic worldview?

According to naturalism, the world is a product of blind, nonpurposeful processes. We, and our reasoning ability are, in the end, the result of an accident. How, then, does naturalism account for such things as the scientific method, assumptions about the uniformity of nature governed by laws, or abstract reasoning and the laws of logic? How can we have any confidence in our reasoning processes if the mind is a mere accident of nature? In the words of C.S. Lewis from his collection of essays God in the Dock:

“I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

Agnostic theoretical physicist and popular author, Paul Davies, is more candid than most in admitting the role that a theistic worldview plays in science (as cited here):

“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature—the laws of physics—are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

In the end, we must answer the question posed by Ken Samples, “Is it more reasonable to believe that the universe came into existence from nothing by nothing or that, as the Bible says, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’?”

Posted at Reasons.org

By David Pack

People have debated the existence of God for thousands of years. Most conclude that it cannot be proven—one way or the other. It is surmised that the correct answer lies in the area of abstract philosophy and the metaphysical. Others become agnostics, asserting that they “don’t know” if God exists. Those who do accept God’s existence often do so passively, merely because they were taught it from childhood. Some do not even care. Such people probably cannot be moved from their apathy. Atheists have concluded that God does not exist. These people represent a special category that God describes as, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). This scripture is repeated in Psalm 53:1. This booklet will explain why God calls atheists “fools.”

Over thirty-seven years ago, I learned of absolute proof that God exists. My studies lasted 2 1/2 years. I came to realize that I did not have to accept His existence “on faith.” Since that time, science has learned much more and the “case” for God’s existence has become far stronger than at any time in history. This booklet presents numerous absolute, immutable proofs that God does exist. After reading it, you will never again doubt the answer to this greatest of questions! Some proofs will amaze you. Others will inspire you. Still others will surprise or even excite you. All of them will fascinate you with their simplicity. We will first examine some traditional proofs and then consider material that rests on the cutting edge of scientific understanding, before returning to established proofs. You will learn from biology, astronomy, chemistry and mathematics.

Creation or Evolution?

There is an all-important question that is inseparable from the question of God’s existence. The question of whether life on earth exists, because of blind, dumb luck and chance, through evolution, or because of special creation by a Supreme Being, cannot be avoided in studying the existence of God.

Did all life on earth evolve over millions of years, as evolutionists assert—or did an all-powerful God author it at creation? Most people assume evolution is true, just as those who believe in God assume His existence. I also studied this question—evolution vs. creation—in depth, during the same period that I sought to prove God’s existence.

I learned that it takes far more “faith” to believe in the intellectually chic and fashionable evolutionary myth, than it does to believe in the existence of God. In fact, I learned that evolution is based entirely on faith, because no facts or proof have ever been found to support it! (We have prepared a thorough and most inspiring, 32-page, magazine-sized brochure, EVOLUTION – Facts, Fallacies and Implications, that complements this booklet. Those who read this powerful publication will never again doubt the scientific case for Creation!)

Faith and Proof

Faith does play a role in the life of a Christian. For the person who truly wants to seek God and learn to please Him, notice:

“But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). Faith is vital to a Christian. In fact, without it, no one can please God. Notice, this verse says that those seeking God “must believe that He is.” A deep belief in God, who “rewards” all who “diligently seek Him,” requires proof of His existence. After proof has been established, then—and only then—can one have faith—absolute confidence—that what he does is being recorded in God’s mind, to be remembered when he receives his reward. If you are uncertain that God exists, because proof of that existence has not been firmly established, then, under fire, your faith will wane or disappear.

Click here for the full article.

By Dinesh D’Souza

God, I don’t know whether you even exist. I’m a skeptic, I doubt, I think you may be only a myth. But I am not certain (at least when I’m completely honest with myself). So, if you do exist, and if you really did promise to reward all seekers, you must be hearing me now. So I hereby declare myself a seeker, a seeker of the truth, whatever and wherever it is, I want to know the truth and live the truth. If you are the truth, please help me.

What’s So Great About Christianity (2007)

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

By Wayne Cordeiro, Ph.D.

I have often heard theses words. Can we trust people? Isn’t that our goal? Shouldn’t that be the ideal? However, I am finding something that may be disturbingly true yet freeing. How often truth disturbs me before it frees me.

Yesterday, I met with a person who is struggling with another Christian for a breach of trust. It was a business agreement, and what was “common courtesy” to one was to the other person, nothing at all.

He felt that since it was another brother, a handshake would suffice. But now, there are many misunderstandings and the relationship is broken.

I came across a disturbing verse that set me free.

“But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for He knew all men. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man” - John 2:24

I have found that the Word of God says that Jesus did NOT put His trust in man, but it doesn’t mean that He didn’t love (or agape) them. Psalms 103 reminds us with these words:  “He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust.” 

I know that about myself.  I forget that about others.

Let’s stop a moment and think about this. Man is made of body, soul and spirit, and the body part, or the flesh, will never be saved nor will it ever be redeemed. It cannot be trusted, and it will never get converted. So, 1/3 of each person is basically, untrustworthy. It can turn on you at any time, and it is much more interested in self than others. That’s just the way it is wired. If you think about it, there’s at best, a 66% chance that you can trust them to come through all the time. But we often think it should be 100%. No one can meet that standard. Only Jesus can, and maybe I have been expecting people to do only what Jesus can do.

 I have seen in the Word where husbands and wives are to trust one another, but other than that, we must put our trust in the Lord. We are to “agape” one another, but our trust is only safe in the Lord. It doesn’t mean that we are distrusting. It is just that we know what is in man … 2/3 trustworthy, at best. That’s what Jesus exampled in John 2:24.

We all have to agree that even we ourselves, are at times, untrustworthy. Although we fully know what we should do, we don’t do it. We even make righteous goals for our life, relationships, and morality, but our lack of discipline makes us untrustworthy. We have great Bible Studies, we propound good things and how we must submit, be teachable, be godly, ad infinitum. But that’s about as far as it goes. In other words, we cannot even trust ourselves that we will follow through. Our heart is fickle, and our commitment is unstable.

However, God is absolutely trustworthy.

But when people fall short of our expectations, we often lose our inner peace. Relationships are strained, things go underground, we are frustrated, and we give up on one another. But see what Isaiah says:

You will keep him in perfect peace whose mind is steadfast because he trusts in Thee. - Is 26:3

I have searched for this perfect peace, thinking that I would find it in friends and people that I could surround myself with, those I could fully trust. Instead, I have been only disenchanted, and to have that perspective could actually equal selfishness on my part. It means that I am looking for people who think like me, act like me, and speak like me.

However, I can fully trust Christ. Remember, Jesus is the Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6).

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

So as I continue to trust in the One who is trustworthy, my mind will be kept in perfect peace. I will agape love people, want their best, but if they do not come through, I don’t stop loving them.

Trust Christ … Agape people.

For years, I think I have been doing it wrong. I have been agape-ing God and trying to trust people. But I need to agape people and trust in God. I have to remember, 1/3 of each man is still flesh and completely untrustworthy, no matter how good or how holy they are.

Isaiah 26:10 says, “…even in a land of uprightness, they go on doing evil.” Even in the Church, flesh is still the default of many a good people.

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to “Boyle’s Law” for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, ‘for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels…’ As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty.” Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

By Rich Deem, M.Sc.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God’s plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.”

By Rich Deem

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous “I think therefore I am”. Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

This video lasts 9:46