Faith & Self Defense

Building Confidence Through Evidence

Book Review: Dictionary of Christianity and Science

The Dictionary of Christianity and Science (Zondervan, 2017) is an exceptional resource for Christians who are engaged in apologetics, evangelism, and discipleship.

Christianity and science is a hot topic on college and university campuses. Many atheists claim science has “proven” that Christianity is not true and that God does not exist. The first question I ask atheists who say that to me is – “which science”?

They look puzzled and wonder what I mean. I then ask them if the science they believes disproves Christianity is astronomy, biology, chemistry or some other system of knowledge.

To make a general statement that “science” has proven Christianity untrue and God non-existent is to show how little the person knows about science.  As we see in The Dictionary of Christianity and Science, that atheistic claim cannot be supported from true scientific investigation.

The full title of the new book is Dictionary of Christianity and Science: The Definitive Reference for the Intersection of Christian Faith and Contemporary Science and it certainly lives up to its name. The editors (Paul Copan, Tremper Longman, Christopher Reese, Michael Strauss) have done a wonderful job selecting the article and essay topics and authors. Contributors include scientists and professors from a wide variety of disciplines including –

  • Astronomy
  • Biology
  • Chemistry
  • Christian Apologetics
  • Computer Science
  • Ethics
  • Environmental Studies
  • Evolution
  • Geography
  • Geology
  • Health Sciences
  • History of Science
  • Humanities
  • Mathematics
  • Neurology
  • New Testament
  • Natural and Behavioral Sciences
  • Old Testament
  • Pediatrics
  • Philosophy
  • Philosophy of Science
  • Physical Science
  • Physics
  • Psychology
  • Religion
  • Terrestrial Magnetism
  • Theology

What you will find inside the book are entries for more than 450 key terms, theories, individuals, and debates, along with essays from more than 140 scholars.

I highly recommend the Dictionary of Christianity and Science for all Christians who want to better understand how to build a strong apologetic for the Christian worldview even as it is under attack by so many in academia, the workplace and marketplace. Christians can and should have in-depth conversations with non-Christians about science.

Publisher: About the Book

The definitive reference work on science and Christian belief

How does Christian theology relate to scientific inquiry? What are the competing philosophies of science, and do they “work” with a Christian faith based on the Bible? No reference work has covered this terrain sufficiently—until now.

Featuring the work of over 140 international contributors, the Dictionary of Christianity and Science is a deeply-researched, peer-reviewed, fair-minded work that illuminates the intersection of science and Christian belief. In one volume, you get reliable summaries and critical analyses of over 450 relevant concepts, theories, terms, movements, individuals, and debates. You will find answers to your toughest questions about faith and science, from Adam and Eve and the Age of the Earth to Evolution and String Theory.

Reviews & Endorsements

Dictionaries are shaped by editors, and the editors of Dictionary of Christianity and Science have created a resource unlike anything available. Here the reader will find fair-minded summaries of crucial scientific categories, diverse viewpoints that will surely satisfy and dissatisfy everyone, sketches of schools of thought that become mini-classroom experiences, and a breadth of learning that demonstrates that evangelicalism is coming of age in the discussion about science and faith. Gone are old-fashioned dismissals of science in favor of the Bible. Instead, what we find is rigorous thinking about some of our faith’s most difficult challenges. Every Christian studying science will want a copy of Dictionary of Christianity and Science within arm’s reach. — Scot McKnight, Julius R. Mantey Professor of New Testament, Northern Seminary

As a pastor, I’m called to speak God’s word about God’s world to God’s people. This means connecting Scripture to a whole range of contemporary issues—many of which are outside the training or expertise of the pastor. As a result, I’m always on the lookout for resources to help me wisely shepherd my congregation. That’s why I’m thrilled to see the Dictionary of Christianity and Science. What pastor has the time to be up to speed on all the issues at the intersection of Christianity and science? Yet what pastor can avoid the need to have something thoughtful to say? Our congregations look to us for this kind of intellectual leadership—and this one-of-a-kind resource makes that job a whole lot easier. A wealth of articles on an array of topics, written with both scholarly acumen and pastoral grace. I can’t recommend this resource highly enough. — Todd Wilson, Senior Pastor, Calvary Memorial Church

This is an invaluable resource that belongs in every Christian’s library. Pastors and others will find themselves consulting it frequently for its insightful and helpful entries. I will be keeping my copy close by when I’m writing. — Lee Strobel, author of The Case for Christ; The Elizabeth and John Gibson Chair of Apologetics, Houston Baptist

Zondervan’s new Dictionary of Christianity and Science sparkles with passion, controversy, and diverse perspectives. Contributors cover the many intersections of Christianity and science, and the thinkers who work there. The embattled terrain of evangelicalism receives special emphasis, with contributions from competing thinkers. The result is an engaging, useful volume that belongs in the library of anyone thinking seriously about science and Christian belief. — Karl Giberson, Professor of Science and Religion, Stonehill College

I am pleased to recommend this dictionary edited by Paul Copan, Tremper Longman, Chris Reese, and Michael Strauss. From the beginning article on Adam and Eve, it is clear that the editors have labored earnestly to include differing perspectives on many issues involving science and Christianity. Although I do not agree with every position, particularly theistic evolution, there is value in challenging readers to examine these issues carefully for themselves. — Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry, University of Georgia

In this unusual dictionary, over a hundred evangelical Christian scholars vigorously (and variously) defend biblical insights in dialogue with and confronting contemporary science (and scientism). From the early Genesis stories of creation, accepting Adam as historical and representative, to Darwinian natural history and genetics, to Jesus’s resurrection, to human nature seen theologically and in social science, here is conservative Christianity at its reasoned best. — Holmes Rolston III, University Distinguished Professor, Colorado State University

Zondervan’s Dictionary of Christianity and Science is an impressive resource that presents a broad range of topics from a broad tent of evangelical scholars. I appreciate that it often presents multiple views. For example, we find entries defending both old-earth and young-earth views of creation as well as one defending a historical Adam and Eve and one not so committed to that view. I look forward to having this reference work on my shelf. — Michael R. Licona, Associate Professor of Theology, Houston Baptist University

Books on the relationship of Christianity and science are, by their very nature, controversial, and this one will be no exception. However, the editors and authors have assembled a substantial amount of material on this topic, including not only terms and definitions but multiple-view discussions that explain various views on many of the more controversial subjects. The sheer number of terms, ideas, concepts, and discussions included in this dictionary make this book an extremely unique and helpful “first step” for anyone interested in the subjects included. This volume is the place to begin when questions dealing with the relationship of Christianity to science are broached. — K. Scott Oliphint, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Science and Christianity are the two great forces that have shaped the modern world. This wideranging dictionary offers thorough coverage of numerous points at which they have intersected historically, mapping the intellectual landscape. Any serious reader who turns to it for reference or for more thorough study will learn a great deal. — Timothy McGrew, Professor and Chairman, Department of Philosophy, Western Michigan University

Since the mid-1990s, an exciting development has arisen within scholarly circles of what many people have termed the “New Academic Dialogue between Science and Religion.” There has been a dramatic increase in the number of books moving away from the common perception that modern scientific discoveries and Christian faith are entrenched in a never-ending conflict. The Dictionary of Christianity and Science is a welcome addition to this growing body of literature. The excellent selection of entries covers all the major topics and debates that are relevant today. The remarkably clear writing style and balanced presentation of differing views make this dictionary accessible to both specialists in the field and the general public. I am certain that this dictionary will serve the church for many years in leading many to demonstrate that modern science can glorify our Creator and honor his creation. — Denis O. Lamoureux, Associate Professor of Science and Religion, St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta

I am very grateful to the editors and contributors for this incredible resource. They have wisely sought advocates of the differing positions and have throughout sought to be comprehensive, informative, and, above all, fair. “Dictionary” is too humble a label for what this is! I anticipate that this will offer valuable guidance for Christian faithfulness. — C. John Collins, Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary

Dictionary of Christianity and Science: The Definitive Reference for the Intersection of Christian Faith and Contemporary Science, Zondervan, 2017, 704 pages

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

12 thoughts on “Book Review: Dictionary of Christianity and Science

  1. sklyjd on said:

    It must be remembered that before Darwin all religions including Christianity claimed their God had created humans and everything living in the form as it is living today and it was also believed the Earth was under ten thousand years old.

    Many enthusiastic religions and a minority of Christians still believe these things, however science has unquestionably eliminated those beliefs as being creditable and pushed the realm of God into the last bastion of creation, the universe.

    I predict this will also fall to the scrutiny of science over time, however the downfall may not just come from cosmological investigation but neurological specialists and Cognitive psychologists who are constantly discovering what our brain is capable of. It has already been claimed that that human concepts of spirits and Gods are derived from the mechanics of our brain.

    • Hi, Skyljd. You wrote that “before Darwin” all religions claimed their God had created humans and everything living in the form as it is living today. Do you have full confidence in what Darwin believed and taught? No concerns about more recent scientific discoveries?

      Is your issue with God creating the earth less than 10,000 years ago or with God creating? You say that “science has unquestionably eliminated those beliefs as being creditable,” so I want to make sure I understand what you believe “science” has unquestionably eliminated.

      You mentioned the discoveries of neurological specialists and cognitive psychologists concerning the brain’s capabilities. You also mentioned the “claim” that the human concepts of spirits and Gods are derived from the mechanics of our brain. That is a claim, but is it more than that? Is it true? If you believe it is true, how can you be sure the mechanics of your brain are not interfering with knowledge of the truth? In Darwin’s world can there be anything that is truly true? How can you trust your brain and your thoughts if Darwin is right?

    • sklyjd on said:

      Thank you for your reply. I have full confidence in the biological evolutionary principles that are now well proven and established as factual, and I cannot find anything of note in any recent scientific discoveries that would challenge or create doubt in this theory.

      The age of the Earth has been tested many times over many years by many people and many methods. There are always those who will believe they can debunk the radiometric age-dating of meteorite material, geologic observation etc. The age of the universe has been measured more accurately than before at 13.82 billion years old by the European Space Agency’s Planck mission.

      The amazing facts from thousands if not millions of scientists and their discoveries is what the issue is. God does not and cannot register as a competitor to science in any form. You only have to go back in history to understand the reaction towards early scientists if they blasphemed against the Bible.

      I understand when you say “How can you trust your brain and your thoughts” and “how can you be sure the mechanics of your brain are not interfering with knowledge of the truth?” I agree that the brain still holds many mysteries, but without further knowledge we have to start somewhere and logical deduction, common sense and an analytical mind is a good place to start.

      Just as from the beginning, primitive man had no scientific understanding for survival, but he desired to understand, so he started somewhere and the only option he had was to perceive there must be a god that did everything that effected his life. So religion was born.

    • Hi, Skyljd. I agree with you that “logical deduction, common sense and an analytical mind is a good place to start.” Belief in God is logical. Common sense and an analytical mind can also lead you to belief in God.

      Some Christians would agree with you about biological evolutionary principles being well proven and established as factual. However, I am not convinced because of the scientific evidence against it. Are you familiar with the scientific challenges to many of the biological evolutionary principles? If so, what do you think about them?

    • sklyjd on said:

      Hello again. I believe the first fact that we must establish with biological evolutionary principles is that the majority and somewhere in the region I believe of more than 95% of scientists agree with them. The second fact is these principles have been tested, re-tested, tweaked and adjusted for something like a 150-year timeframe. The third fact is that evidence that you can touch and see has been discovered from locations around the world. And of course, the fact that evolutionary theory has been accepted by the Catholic Church and a number of other religious denominations even though their related theological interpretations vary. These are logical common-sense facts that are clearly understood.

      The scientific evidence against these principles can only be recognised through academic publishing of one’s results. This should be subjected to a peer-review process and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

      Scientists and researchers have a measure of trust in peer reviewed publications because they understand it has been read and examined carefully and critically for irregular and systematic errors. Peer review is the only barrier against pseudoscientific drivel, however creationists are always trying to sneak things in disguised as real science. Creationist publications such as the Answers Research Journal are the type of publications used by creationism in their attempts to claim legitimacy, therefore I do not think they have any legitimate claims against biological evolutionary principles.

    • Hi, Sklyjd. Since you’re making an appeal to authority, let’s look at your statements.

      “I believe the first fact that we must establish with biological evolutionary principles is that the majority and somewhere in the region I believe of more than 95% of scientists agree with them.”

      Is that 95% of all scientists? Please provide your source with details.

      “The second fact is these principles have been tested, re-tested, tweaked and adjusted for something like a 150-year timeframe. ”

      What does that mean? That testing, re-testing, tweaking and adjusting for 150 years has proven something beyond question? Please provide sources with details.

      “The third fact is that evidence that you can touch and see has been discovered from locations around the world.”

      What does that mean? That touching and seeing things from locations around the world has proven something beyond question? Please provide sources with details.

      “And of course, the fact that evolutionary theory has been accepted by the Catholic Church and a number of other religious denominations even though their related theological interpretations vary.”

      What kind of appeal to authority is that? I thought we were looking at scientific evidence for evolution. How does what denominational leaders determine impact the evidence? Sources please.

      “The scientific evidence against these principles can only be recognised through academic publishing of one’s results. This should be subjected to a peer-review process and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.”

      You are now appealing to the authority of academic publishing and the peer-review process. Is that an infallible process that cannot be manipulated? Sources please.

      “Peer review is the only barrier against pseudoscientific drivel, however creationists are always trying to sneak things in disguised as real science.”

      Are you saying that a scientist who happens to be a Christian and believes God is the creator has not and cannot do good scientific investigation? If Christians have difficulty getting published because of the bias of non-Christian scientists, would you see that as a problem? If scientists who control the publishing/peer-reviewing process are opposed to what a specific group of scientists are publishing and fight the publication of their material for peer-review, would that bother you?

      You appear to have a strong bias when you wrote, “however creationists are always trying to sneak things in disguised as real science.” It looks like you think that a scientist who concluded from their research that life came from a “designer” was really doing “pseudoscience.” Is that true or are you open to the full scientific debate concerning the origin of life? I see you closing the door on full debate, so wondering where we can go from here.

    • sklyjd on said:

      You make appealing to authority sound like a dirty word. Science is not static, it keeps changing and discovering, therefore the facts can only come from those qualified in authority.
      “Over 40 Percent Of Americans Believe In Creationism, Survey Says”
      “While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be ‘just’ a theory.”
      Courtesy of http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/creationism-america-survey_n_5434107
      If you want statistics in just about everything people believe about science you visit this site below and follow the many links, I think it may open your eyes.
      “A survey by Pew Research Center reports that up to 73 percent of American adults under the age of 30 expressed at least some sort of accepting attitude towards evolution – marking a huge jump from 61 percent in 2009, when the survey was first conducted.”
      Courtesy of http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/finally-more-young-americans-accept-evolution-over-creationism/
      “One 1987 estimate found that “700 scientists … (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) … give credence to creation-science”. A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.”
      “Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science.”
      Courtesy of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
      I should have made it clear that that testing, re-testing, tweaking and adjusting were not made to the basic evolutionary principles, but of the individual sciences that have advanced in knowledge to increasing the evolutionary connection and credibility.
      “The incorporation of genetics and Darwin’s theory is known as “modern evolutionary synthesis.”
      The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called mutations. “Mutations are basically the raw material on which evolution acts,” Pobiner said.”
      Courtesy of http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html
      Nowadays, scientists use radiometric dating of various sorts of rock – both earthly and extra-terrestrial – to pinpoint Earth’s age. For example, scientists search for and date the oldest rocks exposed on Earth’s surface.
      Courtesy of http://earthsky.org/earth/how-old-is-the-earth
      Radiometric dating has not been applied to just a few selected rocks from the geologic record. Literally many tens of thousands of radiometric age measurements are documented in the scientific literature.
      Courtesy of http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html
      “In 2013, The European Space Agency’s Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.”
      Courtesy of http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html
      Your comment “If scientists who control the publishing/peer-reviewing process are opposed to what a specific group of scientists are publishing and fight the publication of their material for peer-review, would that bother you?”
      Of course it would, but that is not the case.
      If creationism was scientific it would be a competing scientific hypothesis deserving credibility and taught in public schools alongside evolution.
      “A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it.”
      Courtesy of religious site http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/why-creationism-isnt-science/
      “Quite simply, creationism fails as a science because it hinges centrally on the notion that events and their consequences were aided by divine intervention.”
      Courtesy of http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/creation_model_is_unscientific.htm
      “Creationism Slips Into a Peer-Reviewed Journal”
      Courtesy of https://ncse.com/library-resource/creationism-slips-into-peer-reviewed-journal
      You say “I see you closing the door on full debate” The debate is already over, you cannot compete with science, you have as much credibility with creationism as the people who believe in a flat earth.

    • Hi, Sklyjd. You wrote – “The debate is already over, you cannot compete with science, you have as much credibility with creationism as the people who believe in a flat earth.”

      Though that comment makes little sense to compare belief in God’s creating the heavens and the earth with belief in a flat earth, I can see that our discussion has probably come to an end. So, I’ll share a few thoughts with you in case this is the last time we communicate about such an important topic.

      I read the articles you sent me and most appear to be more about a popularity contest than substance. I mentioned appeal to authority previously because that can be a logical fallacy. That’s why I asked for a breakdown of the types of scientists that believe in evolution and the percentage of believing scientists from each group. I’m curious if there are some groups of scientists who are less inclined to believe in evolution and their reasons why. The comment from one of the people you quoted – ““While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution” – would appear to make a claim that all scientists from all type of science, except for 0.1 percent, believe in Darwinian evolution. The claim is general in nature and not specific, so I will need more evidence to accept that information as true.

      However, even if your claim concerning the number of “scientists” is true, that doesn’t mean evolution is true. There are still too many unanswered issues about evolution to make it a scientific “fact.” Here are some of them –

      Failure of evolution to explain how something came from nothing? Nothing is no-thing .. how can some-thing come into existence from no-thing? Evolution doesn’t have a workable model for origin of life.
      Failure of evolution to demonstrate a viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup.
      Failure of evolution to provide a fossil record that provides support for Darwinian evolution.
      Failure of evolution to explain why molecular biology has not been able to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.”
      Failure of evolution to explain the origin of the genetic code – including unguided chemical processes.
      Failure of evolution to explain how random mutations could generate the genetic information necessary for irreducibly complex structures.
      Failure of evolution to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.
      Failure of evolution to explain biological challenges to common descent.
      Failure of evolution to explain the bio-geographical distribution of many species.
      Failure of evolution to explain why humans show behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage.
      Failure of evolution to explain how it is true given that natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient.
      Failure of evolution to explain how the Cambrian explosion fits into the Darwinian evolutionary model since most major body plans show up at the same time and no new or different body plans appear in rock layers above the Cambrian.

      Interestingly, God’s creating the earth explains all of it.

    • sklyjd on said:

      Hello again faithandselfdefense. My comment about flat earth suggests your eyes and mind are closed to contrary information regarding your beliefs. This becomes a credibility problem for you.

      First thing, you did not read my links properly if you bothered at all. I did furnish you with a site with the heading. “A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.” Plus, many other facts and figures of American beliefs if you followed the links they provide.

      Why do you not use Google yourself to find answers to your questions? This trick of furnishing a load of questions that you find on the creation web sites can also be answered on the internet by bonafide scientific sites. Maybe you should try it because you will never read anything on any site I send you because they will always be about a “popularity contest” for you.The information I provided previously have been from creditable sites. If you do not think they are can you please provide me with the real science sites you approve of?

      Something did not come from nothing is always a common creationist question that I will address for you. Look up dark matter and dark energy and quantum mechanics that tells us there is no such thing as empty space. Even the most perfect vacuum is actually filled by a roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles, which flare into existence and almost instantaneously fade back into nothingness.

      It is so easy to say “God creating the earth explains all of it,” oh yes, he did it all, it is just that simple. You can search all you like and quote the Bible until you are blue in the face but you have no evidence for any such statement. If you literally believe the Biblical word as I think you do I will end communications with words of the wise. Richard Dawkins has said when asked to share a stage with various creationist brain wrongs, it looks better on your CV than mine.

    • Hi, Sklyjd. I don’t know why you think my eyes and mind are closed to any information. Is it because I ask questions? That comes from being an investigative journalist for almost 50 years. Questions eventually lead to answers, which is the pathway to truth. I was a staunch evolutionist and atheist until challenged in 1971 to look at the scientific evidence for both theories (evolution and creation).

      I did read each of the articles you linked. The 5% came from a 1991 poll and the 99.9% came from a 2006 statement by Dr. Brian Alters. Since you quoted it in your earlier response and it was the more recent figure listed, I responded to it rather than the older 5%. Statistics are important and I use them in reporting, but these statistics are what scientists and people and college students believe about something. I could quote statistics about the number of people who believe in the existence of God versus the number of people who don’t believe in the existence of God to make a subjective point, but I don’t because what people believe or don’t believe is not the foundation of truth. Truth is its own foundation. I want to start from truth and work up.

      You asked why I don’t use Google to find answers to my question. I do use Google for research, but the Internet didn’t exist when I began my career as a journalist in the mid-1960’s. I researched by talking with people and looking through thousands of volumes of documents at government centers, courthouses and libraries. I began using computer-assisted research tools in the 80’s and online tools in the 90’s – a few years before Google was founded.

      You wrote that asking questions is a “trick.” Really? That’s what people do when they are searching for answers.

      You wrote – “Why do you not use Google yourself to find answers to your questions? This trick of furnishing a load of questions that you find on the creation web sites can also be answered on the internet by bonafide scientific sites. Maybe you should try it because you will never read anything on any site I send you because they will always be about a “popularity contest” for you. The information I provided previously have been from creditable sites. If you do not think they are can you please provide me with the real science sites you approve of?”

      I’ve already addressed your questions about using Google and asking questions. As I mentioned earlier I studied the issues of evolution and creation for decades before websites existed. Now that websites do exist I use them as part of the investigative process. I read the research from all sides of the origins positions.

      You mentioned that my questions can “also be answered on the internet by bonafide scientific sites.” Do you believe that a bonafide scientific website would be run by bonafide scientists? If so, then why wouldn’t you believe that bonafide scientists who believe God created the heavens and the earth wouldn’t run a bonafide scientific website?

      Journalists develop what we call “expert sources” lists for various categories. One of the categories would be “scientists” and we would build sub-categories (e.g. astrophysicist, chemist, biologist, etc) so we can quickly find experts to address the stories we’re investigating. Part of the process of developing that expert source list is vetting the sources before adding them to the list to ensure they qualify as true experts in their field. That’s the process I go through when determining whether to trust the research findings/comments of the people behind any website. Whether I personally agree with the findings or comments of expert sources has nothing to do with whether I view them as bonafide or not. What qualifies them is their education/research/career background. Being objective in using a wide variety of expert sources is part of being a bonafide investigative journalist. Do you agree with that process? If so, why would you think that websites run by scientists who believe God created the heavens and the earth are not bonafide?

      You wrote – “Something did not come from nothing is always a common creationist question that I will address for you. Look up dark matter and dark energy and quantum mechanics that tells us there is no such thing as empty space. Even the most perfect vacuum is actually filled by a roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles, which flare into existence and almost instantaneously fade back into nothingness.”

      I’m assuming you have personally talked with quantum physicists as I have and already know that quantum mechanics cannot answer the question of origin from dark matter and energy. I spent many years covering NASA scientists who worked in the R&D areas. Many of them told me they believed God created the heavens and the earth. However, I’m not going to make an appeal to authority there because some scientists didn’t. When I covered the NASA R&D center for local and network television years ago I had many of NASA’s scientists on my expert source list. I learned a lot from covering NASA about how careful their scientists are before making statements about their research. Here is a comment from NASA.gov concerning dark energy –

      “One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing.”

      Notice that NASA quotes Albert Einstein when saying that empty space is “not nothing.” Do you agree with Einstein? With NASA scientists that empty space is “not nothing”?

      As for dark matter, more from NASA –

      “By fitting a theoretical model of the composition of the universe to the combined set of cosmological observations, scientists have come up with the composition that we described above, ~68% dark energy, ~27% dark matter, ~5% normal matter. What is dark matter? We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the universe to make up the 27% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them. Third, dark matter is not antimatter, because we do not see the unique gamma rays that are produced when antimatter annihilates with matter. Finally, we can rule out large galaxy-sized black holes on the basis of how many gravitational lenses we see. High concentrations of matter bend light passing near them from objects further away, but we do not see enough lensing events to suggest that such objects to make up the required 25% dark matter contribution. However, at this point, there are still a few dark matter possibilities that are viable. Baryonic matter could still make up the dark matter if it were all tied up in brown dwarfs or in small, dense chunks of heavy elements. These possibilities are known as massive compact halo objects, or “MACHOs”. But the most common view is that dark matter is not baryonic at all, but that it is made up of other, more exotic particles like axions or WIMPS.”

      Dark matter is “matter.” Matter is “something” rather than “nothing.”

      Based on research in the field of quantum mechanics we cannot conclude that something came from nothing. Evolution continues to have no viable explanation for the origin of the universe or life in it.

      By the way, the questions I sent you remain unanswered by you. If you would like to continue our discussion, I would appreciate your response to the scientific objections to Darwinian evolution.

      Thanks

      Mark

  2. Mike Strauss on said:

    From one of the general editors, thanks for the nice review of this dictionary. I invite you to visit my blog at http://www.michaelgstrauss.com and to consider adding it to your blogroll.

    • Greetings! Thank you for your work on the Dictionary. God began working in my atheist mind and heart through scientific apologetics, so I appreciate what you and the other editors have done with this excellent reference work.

      I visited your blog and enjoyed reading several of your articles. I have added it to my blogroll. I am a regional director with Ratio Christi and appreciate the video interview you did with Tony Gurule on Truth Matters a couple of months ago. I remember sharing that with several of our university chapters. Thanks for all you’re doing! Mark

%d bloggers like this: