“You may find it hard to believe God could make
everything from nothing. But the alternative is
that nothing turned itself into everything.” 1
A thousand spheres the size of Planet Earth could fit readily inside the space occupied by the Solar System’s sun. “The visible universe contains about 70,000 million-million-million stars—that’s a 7 followed by 22 zeros.” 2
Earth’s life-friendly ecosystem could not have created itself. Against all odds, some twenty-first century theorists came to the rescue, proposing an unusual “good” news/”bad” news scenario. The “good” news: The unconfirmed report that the mystery of the origin of first life on Planet Earth has been solved. The “bad” news: The suggestion is that our ultimate ancestor may well have been a “biochemical moron.”
Our first ancestor was a virus parasite? Could a parasite virus live without access to a prior life form to latch onto?
The report starts simply enough, announcing that “…many scientists believe that viruses evolved very early on, possibly even earlier than everything else. If so, they are not merely some ornamentation on the tree of life but rather may compose its very roots.” 3
“ “We humans…are nobody’s great idea; we are the fortunate mistakes of countless biochemical morons. That’s evolution. It is humbling but somehow comforting.” 3
Comforting? Finding some great-grand-pappy virus smirking smugly at humans from the pages of the family’s ancestry album?
Taking a swipe at Intelligent Design theory, the report asserts, “…the viruses appear to present a creation story of their own: a stirring, topsy-turvy, and decidedly unintelligent design where life arose more by reckless accident than original intent, through an accumulation of genetic accounting errors committed by hordes of mindless microscopic replication machines.” 3
“Unintelligent” may be the understatement of the millennium.
Throw in “reckless accident…mindless…genetic accounting errors… mistakes…” and, of course, those “countless biochemical morons” and the imagined trip to antiquity begins to resemble a journey to la-la land.
While the verbiage may inspire a field day of punditry, the idea carries a serious side. Recognizing viruses to be older and more complex than once believed and that possibly they may compose the “very roots” of the “tree of life” is an idea that represents eye-rolling poppycock.
Where’s the substantiating evidence? And where’s any verifiable explanation as to the source of genetic information for the virus? Formulation of a living cell, capable of reproducing itself, has never been created in the laboratory much less accidentally generated spontaneously in nature. Not even a parasite virus is capable of independent living; it has to latch onto an already living host.
Big Bang proponents speculate that all matter and every star in our universe resulted from an exploding dot no bigger than a period at the end of a sentence.
Multiverse theorists wonder if there could be more than one universe.
How can “something” explode from “nothing?” What caused “nothing” to explode into “everything?” If “nothing” was all that existed, what could go “bang?” Do the laws of physics support the notion that every piece of matter floating in a 14-billion light year observable universe could have been compacted in a dot no bigger than the period closing a sentence? Where did the “dot” come from? Could there be absolutely “nothing”—no energy, no matter, no light, not even empty space, or no space, in a universe without boundaries?
And when, where and how did all that originate?
If energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then where did the energy and matter compressed within that miniscule dot originate before the supposed inflation from the Big Bang? And how can a destructive force create a cosmic universe of something out of nothing?
Verifiable answers to these queries ride waves of silence.
For the cosmos to have created itself, as per the conjecture, the basic laws of physics, as now understood, would have to be suspended, modified or abandoned.
“…When you squeeze the entire universe into an infinitesimally small, but stupendously dense package, at a certain point, our laws of physics simply break down. They just don’t make sense anymore.” 4
Astrophysicist Peter Coles from England’s University of Nottingham throws cold water on the not-so-hot idea.
“here is little direct evidence that inflation actually took place…It is a beautiful idea that fits snugly with standard cosmology…but that doesn’t necessarily make it true.
“We don’t know for sure if inflation happened…In a way we are still as confused as ever about how the universe began.” 5
So much for the alleged Big Bang.
No evidence confirms life exists on neighboring planets
Venus, Mars, or Saturn, so what cosmic magic
engineered life on Planet Earth?
Why life here and not on the moon?
Big bangers look to an explosive force, supposedly occurring several billions of years before the present, as having self-created multi-trillions of bits and pieces of matter, which formed orbiting spheres, parading in space in some good-luck sequence of universal order.
Other academics attribute the harnessing of all the factors essential to create a life-friendly environment to a Master Designer!
Thanks to predictable order in space, mathematical measurements plot the time and place of cosmic orbits with uncanny precision, whether the time dimension dips millenniums into the past or extends outside the reach of an uncharted future.
Explosions observed on earth rip matter apart, leaving fragments of ruble, strewn helter-skelter in disorganized trash heaps.
Where is evidence a cosmic explosion created order out of chaos?
How could an undesigned cosmic explosion create the mathematical balance evident in galaxies—from nothingness?
Suspended in space, without cables or foundations, earth moves in at least three directions simultaneously—spinning on its axis; orbiting the sun; and floating in sync with the other components of the solar system within the 100,000 light year diameter of the Milky Way galaxy.
Nothing random about this system of planets spinning about the sun, nothing chaotic, and the obvious precisions seems unlike the product of chance. The most brilliant minds can’t duplicate this cosmic balancing act. Keeping free-floating spheres in perpetual motion, floating in repetitious orbits, without strings—the idea confounds our best minds.
That’s just the beginning of flabbergasting realities.
The length of a day on our Blue Planet is 24 hours, with 365.256 days to a year. Venus rotates once every 243-earth days. A Venus solar day runs 116.75 earth days. Every planet in the solar system moves at its own speed; the Solar System conducts a precise symphony of mathematical balance.
Planetary orbits display variances of distance and shapes with tendencies ranging from the round to the elliptical. Axis tilt angles are unique for each planet. Most rotate counter clockwise to the east while Venus, Uranus and Pluto rotate clockwise to the west.
Planetary orbits display variances of distance and shapes with tendencies ranging from the round to the elliptical. Axis tilt angles are unique for each planet. Most rotate counter clockwise to the east while Venus, Uranus and Pluto rotate clockwise to the west.
Does this sound like fall-out from an explosion?
Can a theoretical explosion explain the origin of environmental conditions essential for life’s genesis?
“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning…” 4 Heavy doses of intellectual flimflam can’t disguise reality!
“There are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in…1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup…
“If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court…”6
“…The difficulties in producing a protein from the mythical prebiotic soup are very large, but more difficult still is the probability of random processes producing the simplest living cell…” 7
Think about it.
“The concept that all the parts of the first living thing preexisted, and its formation was simply a matter of spontaneous generation there from is mathematical absurdity, not probability. All present approaches to the problem of the origin of life are either irrelevant or lead to a blind alley.” 8
Bradley and Thaxton reason that “…even assuming that all the carbon on earth existed in the form of amino acids and react at the greatest possible rate of 1012/s for one billion years…the mathematically impossible probability for the formation of one functional protein would be ~10-65.” 9
Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that “the likelihood of even one very simple enzyme arising at the right time in the right place was only one chance in 1020 or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000… that about 2,000 enzymes were needed with each one performing a specific task to form a single bacterium like E. coli.” 10
Hoyle, with his colleague Chandra Wickersham, estimated that “the probability of all of these different enzymes forming in one place at one time to produce a single bacterium, at 1 in 1040,000.
“This number is so vast that it amounts to total impossibility.” 10
Hardly an endorsement of the biblical creation week, the following allusion from the last paragraph of Origin referencing a “Creator” may have appeased some Christians looking for compromise, while giving root to his “one” or a “few” simple life forms supposedly growing a “tree of life.”
While sticking to his life-by-accident theory, Darwin conceded
life might have been “originally breathed by the Creator
into a few forms or into one…” 11
“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
“But if we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” 12
Without that first-ever living cell making its début, Darwin’s Origin of Species dream of evolving branches on a “tree of life” would be stranded rootless with no chance to grow—even in several billion years.
Darwin’s biological evolution hypothesis can’t fly without initial launch from that chemical “warn little pond” scenario which posits the alleged action of energy sources forming organic compounds in the atmosphere “washed down by rain and accumulated in the primitive oceans until they reached the consistency of a hot dilute soup. According to this model, life appeared from the chemical reactions and transformations that took place in this prebiotic soup.” 13
Big problem here: evidence of the magic elixir is a no-show.
“Prebiotic chemical soup, presumably a worldwide phenomenon, left no known trace in the geological record.” 14
So-called “dawn rocks” from Western Greenland, conventionally dated at 3.9 billion years before the present and reputedly the oldest known dated rocks on the planet, show nothing resembling prebiotic soup.
“Rocks of great antiquity have been examined…and in none of them has any trace of abiotically produced organic compounds been found…
“Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.” 15
Hubert Yockey dismisses “primeval soup” as a non-event.
“The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability.” 16
Abiogenesis didn’t happen but should be viewed as “just a relic of the cosmology of the time it was invented…
“There is no evidence that a ‘hot dilute soup’ ever existed. In spite of this fact, adherents of this paradigm think it ought to have existed for philosophical or ideological reasons…Scientists are divided into segregated schools that do not even agree on the standards of scientific inquiry…” 17
With respect to the “prebiotic soup theory of the origin of life…objective scientific principle of a search for the truth is replaced by the subjective aesthetic principle of a well-constructed story.” 17
The never-happened spontaneous generation of life from chemical non-life comes burdened in the collateral fiction of the never-was Ur-schleim, an imaginary slime-like material existing deep in the ocean, allegedly the nursery for first life in a “self-origination” format.
“In science one must follow the results of experiments and mathematics and not one’s faith, religion, philosophy or ideology. The primeval soup is unobservable since, by the paradigm it was destroyed by the organisms from which it presumably emerged.” 18
Darwin contemporary, Sir William Dawson, didn’t think much of evolution theory. He labeled it “one of the strangest phenomena of humanity…a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech….
“Now no one pretends that they rest on facts actually observed…Let the reader take up either of Darwin’s great books, or Spencer’s ‘Biology,’ and merely ask himself as he reads each paragraph, ‘What is assumed here and what is proved?’ and he will find the whole fabric melt away like a vision…Evolution as an hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact, and… its imagined series of transmutations has breaks which cannot be filled.” 19
Some evolutionists, kick the first-life can down the road by suggesting life survived the rigors of outer space travel and rode to earth after emerging somewhere else in cosmic space following the hypothetical Big Bang.
The question left hanging: “How did that cosmic, outer space first life manage to create itself?”
The likelihood of natural forces delivering the ingredients essential to sustain life, simultaneously in one place, at one instant in time, and without intelligent input is as preposterous as the discredited notion of spontaneous generation.
“It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…The Impression of design is overwhelming…We are truly meant to be here.” 20
Microscopic particles, one ten-millionth the mass of an electron, are believed to be the most miniscule form of matter known to man. The atom, with its positively charged nucleus encircled by an array of electrons, ranks as the smallest unit of the elements charted in the periodic table displayed in high schools. Combinations of inorganic molecular matter can be built from a mix of these elements in carefully calculated, chemical recipes, capable of replication. Molecular bonding, essential to life, requires the presence of no less than 40 different elements. Success is contingent upon electromagnetism functioning within a balanced electron-to-proton mass ratio.
Starting with a formulated mix of oxygen and hydrogen, water flows, a crucial ingredient for life’s recipe. Next add a dash of carbon and a touch of sulfur. Finally, bolster the formula with some nitrogen and phosphorous. That’s only the beginning of an inorganic base essential for intelligent life.
And don’t forget, DNA’s pre-programmed information looms as an imperative for cell formation, function and reproduction.
The odds of an explosion, creating an environment friendly to the production of organic life is less likely than all earth’s citizens solving a Rubik cube puzzle, simultaneously, in less than a minute—then repeating the exercise, without error, a million consecutive times.
In the solar system, earth alone exhibits a confluence of cosmic coincidences essential to sustain organic life known to humans. Plants and animals can’t survive except as co-dependent components of an ecological package.
For starters, earth’s life-friendly ecosystem thrives on balanced land/water ratios, a reliable supply of liquid water, all nestled within a thin atmospheric envelope with delicately matched ratios of oxygen, carbon dioxide, ozone, and nitrogen.
Temperate seasons are affected by the moon’s size and distance from earth. A narrow habitable zone is assured by solar radiation neither too near nor to far from that zone designed for life.
The mass, color, location, and luminosity of stars; the inclination of earth’s orbit and axis tilt; a terrestrial crust with moving tectonic plates; gravity that keeps feet planted securely; and magnetic fields combine to suggest “if masses did not attract each other, there would be no planets or stars, and once again it seems that life would be impossible.” 21
All this convergence by chance in a split second of time, at a location no more than a micro-mini speck in space, complete with a convenient and readily available array of that exotic array of life-essential elements.
So what’s the probability of finding a free-floating space station offering an environment capable of generating and sustaining organic life by chance?
Guillermo Gonzales and Jay W. Richards, analyzed earth’s “grand scheme” in their landmark treatise, The Privileged Planet, and suggest the chance of all critical environmental factors essential for life appearing simultaneously, seems mathematically off-scale—like winning some cosmic lottery.
This series of conditions friendly to life, all within the cross hairs of one small dot in infinity, beckons recognition of something beyond the luck of the draw. Logic teams with science and Scripture, pointing to a Master Designer.
Recent estimates account for more than 1,000 identified planets in the cosmos—and still counting. With 10,000 billion billion stars in space, it should be no surprise that life comparable or superior to Homo sapiens could exist on other planets with their own co-dependent ecosystems.
Just as life, as we know it, does not generate spontaneously, it has yet to be observed elsewhere in the cosmos, even if odds suggest some form of intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe.
Explorers from the Blue Planet home base survive in space’s hostile environment by carrying their own life-support systems. Fragile human life hinges on access to oxygen, water and food. Air deprivation guarantees suffocation in short minutes. Without water, a person can last several days. Too much water drowns its victims. Without water, death by dehydration awaits.
Starvation takes longer but is just as certain. Take away nutritious food, and the most robust person might survive but a few, short weeks.
Temperatures too hot or too cold accelerate the death process. Too much, too little, too far, too near, too late, too soon—any factor out-of-kilter and life on earth could not exist. Move the sun 5% closer, and the earth would be scorched. Modify earth’s orbit 20% farther from the sun and life would drift into deep freeze.
A transparent atmosphere enables scientific analysis of the heavens. And don’t forget that ozone mantle, wrapped protectively around earth, shielding life from overpowering ultraviolet radiation.
Consistent doses of sunlight, radiating beams of ultraviolet and infrared, sustain life. If the sun’s relationship to the electromagnetic spectrum shifted imperceptibly, the chance of life could vanish.
Instead of blistering heat or deadly radiation, energy from the sun comes calibrated in a range maximizing a life-friendly environment. Sunlight delivers a psychological bonus in the riot of colors embellishing environments. Restful sky-blues, backlighting forests of multi-hued greens define the landscape. A rainbow of kaleidoscopic accents, ranging from pastel shades of shimmering pinks and lavenders to crimson-golds, trace the arc of a daily rising and setting sun. Rather than a life in dull black and white, shifting combinations of the sun’s rays conspire to induce peace.
Despite somber predictions that the raging inferno at the heart of the solar system is certain to destroy itself someday in a blazing conflagration, the sun ignores dire predictions and keeps “rollin’ round heaven all day.”
“Almost everything about the basic structure of the universe…
the fundamental laws…of physics and the initial distribution of matter
and energy…is balanced on a razor’s edge for life to occur.” 22
Oxidation renders spontaneous generation of life impossible. Free oxygen inclines to oxidize organic compounds, destroying the chemical building blocks of life. Atoms and molecules tend to bond with oxygen atoms while free oxygen inclines to oxidize organic compounds, destroying life’s critical chemical building blocks.
“Oxygen was likely present in the early earth’s atmosphere.” 23
There is “…strong evidence that oxygen was present on the earth from the earliest ages… Significant levels of oxygen would have been necessary to produce ozone which would shield the earth from levels of ultraviolet radiation lethal to biological life.” 24
If the “early atmosphere was oxygen-free…then there would have been no protective ozone layer. Any DNA and RNA bonds would be destroyed by UV radiation… Either way, oxygen is a major problem.” 25
“…All experiments simulating the atmosphere of the early earth have eliminated molecular oxygen…Oxygen acts as a poison preventing the chemical reactions that produce organic compounds…If any chemical compounds did form, they would be quickly destroyed by oxygen reacting with them…” 26
“Even if oxygen was not present in the early earth’s atmosphere, the absence of oxygen would present obstacles to the formation of life. Oxygen is required for the ozone layer, which protects the surface of the earth from deadly ultraviolet radiation. Without oxygen this radiation would break down organic compounds as soon as they formed.” 27
Microbiologist Michael Denton reasons that “in an oxygen-free scenario, the ultraviolet flux reaching the earth’s surface might be more than sufficient to break down organic compounds as quickly as they were produced…In the presence of oxygen, any organic compounds formed on the early Earth would be rapidly oxidized and degraded…
“The level of ultraviolet radiation penetrating a primeval oxygen-free atmosphere would quite likely have been lethal to any proto-organism possessing a genetic apparatus remotely resembling that of modern organisms.
“What we have then is a ‘Catch 22’ situation…If we have oxygen, we have no organic compounds but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either.” 28
It’s a classic lose/lose scenario—life could never evolve in an atmosphere with oxygen; but once formed, life could not survive without oxygen.
Life’s origin and survival also demands water—a rare commodity in the solar system. It is axiomatic: no water, no carbon-based life. How could an explosive big bang in space wrap earth in a wet blanket but leave the circling moon and planets as high and dry as the desert sands?
Genesis describes an originally empty and formless earth with darkness “over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” 29
The message from Genesis 1:2 declares earth and water pre-existed the creation of life and its ecological support system during creation week’s seven literal days. Misinterpreting the obvious to assert that not only life but earth’s water and matter along with the entire undiverse were spoken into existence by the word of God 6,000 years before the present leads to an intellectual cul-de-sac.
Viewed from space, our Blue Planet reflects a bright blue hue.
Supposedly 70% of the earth is covered with water. So much so that if the earth’s land crust was flattened, water hundreds of feet deep would cover its surface.
Scholars draw fascinating conclusions: 96.5% of earth’s water consists of ocean marine water and 0.97% brackish water (Its suggested 95% of the total fossil record consists of marine life). That leaves 2.53% of our entire water supply as fresh water. This comparatively minuscule amount is allocated as: 69.6% glaciers and permanent snow; 30.1% ground water; 0.29% lakes, marshes, and swamps; 0.05% soil moisture; 0.04% atmosphere; 0.006% rivers; and 0.003% living organisms. 30
“Either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on the planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the earth.
“The first theory…is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being…The second theory is also an act of faith…assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support the belief.” 31
Rejecting belief in an all-powerful Creator as faith-based “religion,” while embracing a luck-of-the-draw invention of the human mind as “science”–epitomizes intellectual hypocrisy.
Regardless of the label, marketing a poison pill as a vitamin does nothing to enhance public health.
“The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747.” 32
Life does not create itself from non-life—not millions of years in the past! Not today. Not ever.
Matter and energy don’t result from “nothing” exploding.
When a computer crashes, intelligent information never uploads itself. With no place else to go, life resulting from a destructive cosmic explosion followed by an accident in Darwin’s “warm little pond,” retreats to the murky shadows of deep time’s conjectured imaginings.
Evolution fallacy is consistent only in its incoherent irrationality.
Thomas A. Edison recognized that “…this world is ruled by infinite intelligence. Everything that surrounds us – everything that exists – proves that there are infinite laws behind it. There can be no denying this fact. It is mathematical in its precision.” 33
Rocket scientist Werner von Braun added a similar take:
“I find as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the existence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advance of science.” 34
1—This thought is attributed to Mark Cahill, but the precise reference not known.
2—Martin Rees and Priyamvada Natarajan, “Invisible Universe,” Discover (December, 2003) 18.
3—Charles Siebert, “Unintelligent Design,” Discover (Vol. 27, No. 3, March, 2006) 31, 34.
4—Brian Greene, Professor of mathematics and physics, Columbia University, as quoted by Carl Warner, Living Fossils, Evolution: the Grand Experiment, (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Press, 2008) 4.
5—Peter Coles, “Boomtime,” New Scientist, March 3, 2007.
6—Dean L. Overman, 59, citing Hoyle and Wickramasinge, 148, 24, 150, 30, and 31 as quoted in Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen, 196.
7—Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (New York: Academic Press, 1968); cited by Coffin, 376.
8—John Keosian, In Haruhiko Nada, ed., Origin of Life (Tokyo: Center for Academic Publications, Japan Scientific Publications Press, 1978) 573, 574, quoted by Coffin, 377.
9—Walter L. Bradley and Charles B. Thaxton, “Information and the Origin of Life,” in The Creation Hypothesis, ed. J.P. Moreland (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1994) 190 as quoted by Overman, 62.
10—Dean L. Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, 58, 59.
11—Charles Darwin, Origin, 649.
12—__________, Letter to J.D. Hooker [1 February] 1871, in Darwin, F., ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, , (New York: Basic Books, Vol. II, 19590) 202-203.
13—Dean L. Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997) 38. See Aleksander I. Oparin, The Origin of Life (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1938).
14—Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984) 182, 183, 185, quoted by Bert Thompson, 80.30—Denton, 261.
15—Michael Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, 261.
16—Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 257, quoted by Overman, 61, 62.
17—Gunter Wachtershauser, Letter to Editor, Science, 25 October 2002, vol. 298.
18—Larry A. Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) 129.
19—Sir William Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1887) 317, 322, 330, 339.
20—Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Ability to Order the Universe (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988) 203 and The Mind of God (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992) 232.
21—Michael J. Murray, Reason for the Hope Within (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999) 61-62
22—__________, Reason for the Hope Within, 48.
23—Dean L. Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, 40, 41.
24—Percival Davis, Dean H. Kenyon, and Charles B. Thaxton, Academic Editor, Of Pandas and People (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Company, 1993) 3, 4.
25—Ralph O. Muncaster, Creation Versus Evolution (Mission Viejo, Calif.: Strong Basis to Believe, 1997) 17.
26—Percival Davis, Dean H. Kenyon, and Charles B. Thaxton, Academic Editor, Of Pandas and People, 3.
27—Dean L. Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, 42.
28—Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Md.: Adler & Adler,1986) 261, 262.
29—The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1983), Genesis 1:2.
30—Rick Weiss, “Water Scarcity Prompts Scientists to Look Down,” Washington Post, March 10, 2003, A-11.
31—Robert Jastrow, Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977) 62, 63 as quoted by Bert Thompson, The Scientific Case for Creation, 76.
32—Chandra Wickramasinghe “Threats on Life of Controversial Astronomer,” New Scientist, January 21, 1982, 140, as quoted by Overman, 60.
33—Thomas A. Edison, “One of the Many Thomas Edisons You Didn’t Know About,” ARN Announce, Access Research Network, February 14, 2011.
34—Wernher von Braun, as quoted by James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, (Arlington, Massachusetts: Refuge Books, 1999) 253.